Lipoprotein Particle Testing

[Brian C.]

This lab in Houston is one that offers a worthwhile type of cholesterol test :

*http://www.spectracell.com/lpp/


Brian.

[Allen1]

Hi there Brian,

if that test really does prove to be a reliable method of risk assessment for coronary heart disease (as in who is most likely to get plaque build up in their arteries), then it could literally save thousands of people from taking an unnecessary and as we are all aware harmful drug. I would think that a test like this would need to be repeated now and then as our cholesterol levels do go up and down for various reasons, either way I think that this could be another nail in the coffin for statin manufacturers :D

All the best,

Allen :)

[Brian C.]

AFAIK the only people in the UK using this lab at the moment are

*http://www.breakspearmedical.com/

but I've forwarded details to my endocrinologist.
Perhaps I'll have more luck after the Biolabs fiasco.

Brian.

[Allen1]

Blimey Brian,

if you went to that hospital in your link you would need to be a football player to afford those treatment/consultant fees

Maybe your endocrinologist will look into doing trials using the test which could eventually mean more business for the lab who made it, especially if it was proved to be reliable and an affordable option to what is currently available to us at he moment.

Realistically though, if this test did work and saved many people from being statinized, I don't think it would get that far before being discredited mainly because so many palms would no longer be greased ie too many people will lose their additional income from statin sales.

After the JUPITER study and the press reports on it, many people are realising the danger and stupidity of the ever increasing types of candidates. One more nail in the statin coffin and those who will loose money will try anything to keep that money coming in.

All the best,

Allen

[Brian C.]

I'm only investigating getting the relevant tests done through my endo.
He has just replied that he knows them and "they are OK but quite
alternative in a sensible way".

No financially crippling trek to Hemel Hempstead envisaged

Brian.

[Allen1]

Hi there Brian,

I hope he does try the tests for himself as in "offer" as an alternative method or even as well as the normal test to get a fair unbiased outcome that he could work from. Anyway, alternative or not, if they can save people becoming patients the way we did, they have got to be a good option to try at least. Even if the test is initially dearer to do, it would work out a whole lot cheaper with the savings from unnecessary drugs (statins) and all the very expensive tests that most of us have undergone since taking them.

All the best,

Allen :)

[rkcannon]

Are you talking about lp(a) (lipropotein small a) test? Not lpA. THey are very different.
I read a very interesting book from Vit C Foundation called Practicing Medicine without a License. Not the best title but it is about Vit C therapy. It has been proven on Guinea Pigs (also do not make Vit C like humans and a few others) that low vit C causes plaques. These form in high stress areas around the heart due to the pressure pulsations. This really rang a bell with me because I knew there must be some reason for this, and I am a mechanical engineer and know the high stress areas in a branch is at the sharpest angle. This is where plaques often appear. You basically getting fatique failure. The collagen cannot repair the damage because there is not enough vit C. Lysine gets exposed, and lpa binds to lysine. lpa is a sticky cholesterol, kind of a back up mechanism. Nobody tests for it probably bacause they are unaffected by statins. They say it is purely genetic which is more BS. Some estimate it but this is too inaccurate. There are some labs that can test it.

The therapy is to take Vit C in large frequent amounts typically 5-6 g per day and equal amoungs of lysine, which will bind with lpa and deactivate it. The collagen will repair itself and the plaques reverse. Proline can also be taken but not necessary. Lysine is an essential amino acid, high in cheese for one thing. Many cases with dramatic turnarounds in heart patients. Some cases of no effect also, mainly those with medicated stents. another quack gimmick that poisons the cells to make them not grow back! The lpa gradually declines.

I got some Vit C powder and have been buffering it with sodium bicarbonate but think this is too much sodium. My bp is going up. Maybe will get potassium bicarbonate, pot acetate, etc. Calcium not so good for some reason.

Anyway this seems like a great way to attack the root cause.


Why anyone would even consider a statin after what we know is beyond me.

[SpectraCell]

LPPâ„¢ Testing is essential to identifying at-risk patients
Up to 50 percent of those who have suffered heart attacks had “normalâ€

[lars999]

Hello SpectraCell!!

Could you give us references to a few clinical trials, complete with actual data, where we can see for ourselves how accurately this Lipoprotein Particle Profile presages actual occurance of cardio events, such as fatal heart attacks, non-fatal heart attacks, and strokes? No marketing literature, please.

Having read through numerous of the big "cholesterol" and statin-drug clinical trials, that is, those that give actual data, and I have come to discount just about all of them to large degree (actually only two are convincing, and not for what is claimed). Hopefully, data supporting Lipoprotein Particle Profile method are up to "gold standard" for clinical studies data.

Looking for convincingly good data -- not more cholesterol scam BS.
Thanks,
Lars

[SpectraCell]

You make an excellent point about clinical trials - which is to say that in many cases upon careful observation, the data is not as convincing as the conclusions would presume. That notwithstanding, we don't have any large clinical trials specifcally using LPP (Lipoprotein Particle Testing). There are clinical trials, however, using lipoprotein separation and/or measurement technology other than LPP that demonstrate significant relationship between the four risk factors cited by NCEP and heart disease. LPP uses analytical unltracentrifugation to separate lipoprotein particles, which is considered the gold standard for separating lipoprotein particles for measurement. And LPP measures particle density, not cholesterol. So there are really two issues: (1) clinical trials linking the NCEP risk factors to actual cardiovascular events - see below links and (2) validation of the methodology LPP uses for separation and measurement of lipoprotein particles. To address #2, the analytical ultracentrifugation LPP uses most closely correlates to apolipoprotein B measurements, indicating that the separation technology is valid.

About the four NCEP risk factors and clinical trials concerning them, I've listed four links that correspond to each, which have several papers addressing this - some with clinical trials, some reviews, some mechanism of action studies, etc:

1. . Lp(a) - http://www.spectracell.com/online-libra ... -abstract/

2. RLP (remnant lipoprotein) - http://www.spectracell.com/online-libra ... -abstract/

3. Small, dense LDL - http://www.spectracell.com/online-libra ... -abstract/

4. HDL2b - http://www.spectracell.com/online-libra ... -abstract/

Not sure if this answers your question.

Is there a specifc risk factor of the above four that LPP measures on which you want more information than is listed in the links?

[David Staup]

I thought I had posted on this before however probablt not so here is something to consider:

What has particle size got to do with it? Evidence is accumulating that the size of cholesterol particles has a lot to do with risk for heart disease. Basically, the smaller the particles are, the greater the risk -- it is thought that perhaps the small particles lodge in the walls of blood vessels more easily.
The good news for those of us following a low-carb way of eating is that studies of diet and cholesterol particle size have consistently shown that low-carb diets produce larger-sized cholesterol particles. However, a larger-sized particle weighs more than a smaller one. When LDL does go up on a low-carb diet, it may be due to the larger particles, since weight is what's being measured. (A total cholesterol of 200, for example, means 200 mg per deciliter.)

On the other hand, high-carb diets seem to produce a greater percentage of smaller cholesterol particles in some people. So the total LDL goes down (particles are smaller, so the total is lighter.) While the reading may be low, it can be deceiving as risk goes up in those cases.

A good way to sort out risk? LDL particle size seems to be strongly correlated with triglyceride level (high triglycerides go with small particle size and vice versa). So if your triglycerides are low, your LDL particles are probably larger.

from here:

"http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/faq/f/carbcholesterol.htm

and a study of low carb diets and ldl particle size:

"http://www.ccjm.org/content/69/11/849.full.pdf

google is your friend!!!

[lars999]

Thanks for the links, SpectraCell!

I will start with those links to abstracts and hope I can find full articles, not a surefire search at all. I find abstracts, collectively, to be almost useless as a source of reliable medical or biochemical factual information.

To ALL readers,

I have come to have such little confidence in ALL discussions of lipids that I am looking for something other than mushy "risk" factors to ascertain my actual cardiovascular situation. NONE of the cholesterol or lipoprotein based risk factors are very reliable, some laughingly unreliable, total cholesterol, for example.

The following paragraphs pertain to folks with no previous heart attacks.

Data for cholesterol and lipoproteins are very dangerous in hands of doctors because "high" values alone will result in prescription of some statin drug or other --- and readers and posters of this site know how much damage that can cause!!! ALL other risk factors, such as no family history of cardiovascular issues, plaque-free arteries, etc. are brushed aside and statins are insisted to be the magic pill. It is even worse if you are an older person -- doctors seem to forget or never to have learned that NO clinical trial has shown statins to be benificial to folks over 65 and without cardiovascular issues. Ignorant or careless or just plain incompetent doctors!!!

I had the full VAP (Lipoprotein Particle Analysis by a different name) analysis done a few months ago. Except for one measurement, Lp(a), my lipid profile, like my total cholesterol, indicate I should have badly plaque-filled arteries, severe cardio symptoms, a previous heart attack or two or three. Instead, all tests to date show very little, if any plaque in my femoral or carotid arteries. Cardio stress tests find that I can perform physical activity at heart rates above my age-adjusted maximum heart rate of 150 beats per minute. My normal max heart rate for prolonged aerobic activity remains at its lifelong value of 160 beats per minute. SO, I simply have to dismiss the VAP test as still another varient or aspect of the badly misleading "cholesterol hypothesis".

I find the literature about Lp(a) intriging but, like nearly all medical and biochemical data, not very convencing because it is so impercise, with correlation coefficients typically well under 0.8. Scatter grams really. My low Lp(a) value is a nice "bragging" point at parties, but, does it have any greater value? My "cholesterol quack" doctor tries to ignore it, along with my low homosystein value, the absence of cardiovascular issues in my blood relatives, going back a few hundred years, my nearly plaque-free arteries.

I am approaching the expected lifetime for males in USA, Norway, Sweden, etc., so, I do have a very definite, well defined risk factor, one quite independent of lipids. Some day, something will end my life, the probability of that increases exponetially each year.

Lars

[David Staup]

Lars

one thing you seem to have missed in all the talk of cholesterol levels is this:

after age 65-70 ALL studies done on cholesterol vs. mortality show that HIGHER cholesterol levels (out to 330 or so)mean LOWER mortality!

"http://www.spacedoc.net/cheerios_fda

[lars999]

David,

Actually, I have not missed it. It does give me a slight warm, fuzzy. However, I have not seen or searched for the actual data supporting that. SO, I am not yet counting on my decades long "high cholesterol" to have helped keep me alive or to continue to do so.

I do rely on Duane's citations, just not as much as having digested the data myself. I did read that Newsletter some time back. Ditto for same topic in Uffe Ravenskov's and Malcom Kindricks' books. Priorities and time permitting, sooner or later I verify everything I can.

In addition, what explanations I have seen for why higher cholesterol in older folks would be protective all suggest that the higher cholesterol is because the body needs it to combat various aging processes, NOT because of any hyped and hypothetical role in cardiovascular issues.

On other hand, I do blame Lipitor's having lowered my total cholesterol to 50% of my normal level for some of the adverse side effects I experienced. Again, starting points for my understanding that were Duane's, Uffe's and Malcom's writtings.

Thanks,
Lars

[David Staup]

"In addition, what explanations I have seen for why higher cholesterol in older folks would be protective all suggest that the higher cholesterol is because the body needs it to combat various aging processes, NOT because of any hyped and hypothetical role in cardiovascular issues"

"http://www.spacedoc.net/what_causes_atherosclerosis

cholesterol is required for repair and/or biogenisis of every cell in the body including the endothelium cells. while this is certainly not the only reason high cholesterol is benificial it is definately one of the reasons.

also if athero plaques is your only concern have you looked into chelation?

"http://www.spacedoc.net/chelation_heart_disease.htm

relatively inexpensive ~3K

[lars999]

David,

Thanks for bringing Duane's chelation newsletter to my attention. As I read it I did recall having read it before. The use of chelation to remove heavy metals is old stuff to chemists, the use of super-vineger to counter adverse cardiovasculer conditions is new to me and I have not followed up on what Duane wrote about it. I may do so some day, after I have completed my ongoing series of non-invasive tests on arteries and on blood chemistry.

It is hardly only plaque that I am interested in. But, since plaque formation is the major endpoint (at least the penultimate) that the "cholesterol crazies" run on about, absence or near absence of plaque, especially vulnerable plaque, in someone as old as I, with my decades-long ""high" total cholesterol and "bad" lipid particle profile, is rather strong evidence that the cholesterol scam is indeed a scam. The one black swan approach.

I have "debated" my cholesterol quack GP down to him being one step from being totally shut up (his words). He even stated the test, which I may choose to have done later this year, that would shut him up. I am not yet convienced that the test can do what I want, that is positively identify vulnerable plaque in carotid arteries. Shutting him up is not worth cost of the test.

Using chelation to "clean up" any undetected vulnerable plaque would run head on into one of my other concerns, one greatly strengthed by my experience with Lipitor, as well as the many experiences with statins described here. That is, why mess with something that has served be well for many decades? From my personal experiences with perscription drugs, as well as those of many friends, I am actively trying to get rid of the last two I still take, at least intermittenly. Having vinegar injected into my arteries is NOT an appealing idea -- raises lots of thoughts and memories of precationary medical measures that did serious harm (like Lipitor, for example) -- "almost no side effect, and they are very mild". We all know the lie.

My current role model is my 90+ year old aunt, that takes no prescription drugs or suppliments of any kind and has not for many years. Her motto is "Why mess with what has gotten me this far?"

Lars

[David Staup]

Lars,

there is a natural, totally safe way to attack the unknown and therefore probably minor plaques

"http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4962871_apple-cider-vinegar-clean-arteries.html

I have used it for almost two years now, see my original post here:

http://www.spacedoc.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=1509

[lars999]

David,

I have heard apple cider vinegar mentioned in a quite different context, but not to de-plaque arteries. Is this the "super vinegar" Duane mentions in his newsletter on chelation?

The obvious question is: Any clinical trials using doppler ultrasound or intravascular ultrasound to determine plaque burden before and after treatment with apple cider vinegar? Are the clinical trials with super vineger that Duane mentions such clinical trials?

Thanks,
Lars

[David Staup]

Lars,

you need to understand that the drug companies will NEVER fund a clinical trial on something they cannot make tons of $ off of. nor will the agencies that are their puppets. if you read Duanes article closely you will see something like 70 studies (not trials) mentioned showing the effectiveness of chelation...

"http://gordonresearch.com/articles_oral_chelation/edtachel.html

no the super vinegar is not ACV

however if you look into the medicinal use of vinegar throughout history as a health tonic you will see that the benifits have been known for thousands of years:

"http://www.the-apple-cider-vinegar-company.co.uk/shop/page/2?shop_param=

"http://www.apple-cider-vinegar-benefits.com/vinegar-history.html

in so many ways grandma new best

[lars999]

David,

Perhaps we are not quite percisely communicating re clinical trials.

QUOTE from Duane's Newsletter: ""Chelation doesn't work" choruses the medical establishment yet Kauffman's tabulation of some 50 clinical trials document an extra-ordinary 87% success rate based upon very reasonably objective indicators of benefit. His documentation of under-handed and deliberate manipulation of clinical data in support of medically orthodox views for journal presentation makes one cringe."

Perhaps the disconnect is between apple cider vinegar and EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylenedi ... cetic_acid
QUOTE from that Wikipedia article
"Medicine
EDTA is used to bind metal ions in the alternative medical practice of chelation therapy, e.g., for mercury and lead poisoning.[11] It is used in a similar manner to remove excess iron from the body. This therapy is used to treat the complication of repeated blood transfusions, as would be applied to treat thalassaemia. Alternative medical practitioners believe EDTA acts as a powerful antioxidant to prevent free radicals from injuring blood vessel walls, therefore reducing atherosclerosis.[12][13] However, the FDA has not approved the use of EDTA for the cleansing of heavy metals such as mercury from the body or for treatment of atherosclerosis.[14]"

NOTE: Duane's newsletter contradicts the Wikipedia article in regard to using EDTA to remove heavy metals. QUOTE from newsletter .."Even for treatment of heavy metal toxicity, acceptance of this relatively innocuous treatment modality was slow in coming but finally the FDA granted its legal use."

EDTA is an "old friend" from 1970s, for one of the important, non-medical uses noted in the Wikipedia article. I will be browsing through Kaufmann's articles, at some presently undetermined level of priority. Thanks again for reminding me of this.

Lars