What is the cause of heart disease!

The traditional view has been that when you ate eggs and butter -- and other foods high in cholesterol, you increased the amount of cholesterol in your blood stream.  (This is false!  Click here for that story.)  Then, this excessive cholesterol would "build up" on the inside of the inner lining of the artery.  (This is false!   That is the subject of THIS article! )  Next, that cholesterol would attract particles of calcium floating along in the blood stream, building up, now, a sandwich of cholesterol g calcium g cholesterol g calcium g` cholesterol.  ETC.

According to orthodox medicine this build-up of material is called "plaque" and is easily detected by many different diagnostic techniques -- usually the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine).  This plaque is measured, they say, more accurately with an angiogram.   THIS article is where you will learn about the measurement of PLAQUE.  You'll find, here, that the traditional view of what plaque is has no connection with the truth!

Click on the large image to the right to see the original source of that drawing, and the other drawings of the blood circulation system.

This build-up of material would gradually get so large that it would then start cutting off the flow of blood through the artery and eventually a stop in the blood supply would cause a heart attack or stroke.  You will see the images of this progression below.

The traditional solution to this problem was four-pronged:

• First, the person must be educated on proper diet and get on the "heart smart" diet.  Basically this is a low-fat diet with no eggs, butter or other high-cholesterol foods.  (In truth this is the diet recommended by the American Heart Association that, exactly, causes heart disease!)  Click here for my, Karl Loren, diet suggestions.  Click here for my exposure of the lies put out by the American Heart Association.
   

• If that didn't work, the assumption was that the person had some sort of problem with self-discipline -- he couldn't stick to a diet even when he knew it was vital.  The next step in the program (as originally designed by the National Cholesterol Education Program) was "group counseling" or even psychiatric treatment.  (This is hardly ever mentioned any more because it so obviously never worked!)  Click here for my comments on psychiatric counseling and psychiatric drugs.
   

• The Master Planners KNEW that neither of the above would work, but they insisted on them just to make the patient feel guilty for harming his own health with bad diet and poor self-discipline.  They wanted this person, now feeling guilty, to be ready to start taking an expensive drug for the rest of his life.  As the above didn't work, then the person would have to take a cholesterol-lowering drug for the rest of his life.   The great bulk of humanity seems to be at this stage -- the two most popular cholesterol-lowering drugs (Lipitor and Mevacor) now sell about $10 billion per years in the US alone!  (These drugs lower cholesterol, but don't prevent death from heart disease.)  Click here for the story on the failure of cholesterol lowering drugs.
   

• The next step, for those who "refused" to get on the proper diet (which wouldn't work anyway) or refused to swallow their Lipitor, was and is bypass surgery.  Bypass surgery has been the surgical procedure earning the most money of all surgical procedures.  Many billions of dollars every year are spent for bypass.  Bypass, of course, is a very foolish answer to the problem -- it is expensive, harmful to the individual, and doesn't provide very long-lasting relief.  I've written quite a bit about the failures of bypass surgery. Click here for one article, and HERE for another.

Before you would be "allowed" to have bypass surgery, the doctor would insist that you receive some sort of measurement of the blockage in your arteries.  There are several possible means of testing for blockage.  The "blockage" is generally referred to by the doctors as "plaque." Thus, we are now ready to look for measuring devices for "plaque."

Generally, no matter what OTHER measurement technique is used, the doctors insist on the angiogram -- where a tube is inserted in your groin, into a vein, and then shoved up through that vein, to get close to your heart -- at that point some dye in the tube is released and the dye makes it possible to "SEE" the difference between the plaque and the blood channel -- they doctor can also pinpoint the exact location for possible bypass surgery.  When the person gets the angiogram, whether they are told or not, they have signed a consent form -- if the angiogram causes a heart attack during the process (which happens fairly often) they already have your consent to do the immediate bypass surgery.

Before you get the angiogram, however, depending on what hospital the doctor is connected to, he will probably order you to get an "MRI."

One of the very popular measuring devices is called the "MRI," or the "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" device.  So, how is it able to detect and measure plaque?

---

Question:  Can An MRI Distinguish Between Calcium INSIDE A Cell and OUTSIDE A Cell?

So, we now move on to the detail of this page -- a report that should revolutionize the entire world of cardiology and heart health.  The startling fact is that the "plaque" so many people worry about is NOT what their doctors have been telling them it is.

The image on the left is a typical MRI device. 

Since many people learn about "plaque" because they have had some sort of examination, let's explore one of the most common methods of examination -- the use of MRI.

MRI stands for "Magnetic Resonance Imaging.  I have written a rather detailed article about various examination procedures, including MRI, X-Ray, UltraSound and some others.  Click here for that article.

This page starts to explore the question of just what details an MRI can "see."  Specifically, the term "plaque" is widely used with a definition that indicates that there is a layer of calcium and cholesterol built up, deposited on the inside of the artery, but NOT inside the individual cells of the artery.

The MRI, as well as the angiogram and most other testing techniques "sees" something only because there is a difference in density between two different "layers" or items.  If, for instance, calcium and cholesterol had the same density (which they do not) then the MRI would "look" at some combination of calcium and cholesterol and would not see which part was calcium and which part was cholesterol -- both being the same density.

Something that is very dense (see "density ball" to the right) will reflect more "rays" than something that is NOT dense.

Since they are NOT the same density, if there is a "layer" of calcium somewhere, and "next" to that layer of calcium is a supply of free-flowing blood? Then the calcium is obviously much more dense than the blood, the MRI would "see" that line of differentiation.  Typically, the image would show the calcium as white, while the area of blood flow would be dark.  The calcium, very dense, reflects the light, or the sound, or the X-Rays, or whatever and the image looks white. When the MRI beam goes through the blood, there is little density, no great reflection, and the area looks dark.

Simple!

So, these measuring devices work on the principle of "differentiation" in substances, generally on differentiation of density.

The actual images are generally hard to interpret by a layman -- so the doctors and scientists who do this sort of thing "interpret" the images and are nice enough to draw pictures that make these differentiations easy to see.

Here is one of those drawn images of a "normal" artery:

Notice that there are THREE layers to the artery -- outer, middle and inner.  Click here for a more technically correct image of the artery.  And here for an excellent review of the entire blood circulation system.

INSIDE those layers, here pictured and labeled the "Inner Channel" is where the blood flows.

This picture and some others on this page can be viewed in their original context by clicking here.

This next image shows some "plaque."  Note that this "plaque" is NOT INSIDE any of the three layers shown in this image.  Rather plaque has always been considered to be on the "inside" of the wall of the artery.  Just to be very sure where I am saying this is pictured, note that plaque is NOT inside the "inner layer" but is within the "inner channel" on the inward surface of the inner layer.  (Next picture down.)

Next to the images below are the comments in the original source, in blue, with a link to that source.  Here is that next image:

 However, as we get older, lipids or fatty substances (cholesterol and triglycerides) are deposited as fatty streaks. The streaks are only minimally raised and thus do not produce any obstruction or symptoms.  (click here)
 

I make a big point of it, but be sure you realize that these "fatty streaks" are the beginning of  "plaque" and they are "deposited" on the inside wall of the inner layer.  You can guess that these "fatty streaks" could become more numerous -- and actually start to cause a blockage of the artery.

Sure enough, here is the next image:

Patients with one or more risk factors for coronary artery disease are susceptible to the increased buildup of fatty layers, known as atheroma (pronounced athe-a-roma). This buildup of material begins to encroach upon the inner channel and starts to interfere with the free flow of blood through the coronary artery.  (click here)

While this is called "atheroma" when it becomes larger it is known as "plaque."

You can see it building up to block the inner channel so that blood doesn't flow easily through that area.

Now you can see the plaque increase in size and starting to cause serious blockage of the artery. 

This is SO logical, and SO easy to explain -- it is a shame that this is not a true explanation of heart disease.

As atherosclerosis progresses, fibers begin to grow into and around the fatty layers of atheroma, causing the blockage to harden and turn into a plaque (pronounced plak). The enlarging plaque increases the encroachment into the inner channel of the coronary artery. When the channel is reduced by more than 50% (of the diameter) the artery may become obstructed enough to decrease blood flow to the heart muscle during times of increased need (exercise, emotional stress, etc.). During such times, the blood pressure and heart rate are both elevated and increase the need of oxygen and nutrients by the heart muscle.   (click here)
 

Here it is!  The blockage is now complete.  This would be called 100% blockage of whatever artery is involved.

If ALL your major arteries were like this, presumably you would be dead from a heart attack or stroke.

You can guess, without further data, that this so-called "plaque" is plenty large enough to be detected with some sort of device -- such as the Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine.  After all, the larger arteries (near the heart) are about the diameter of a wooden pencil -- so the "blockage" would be almost that thick.  The MRI would see this heavy density material (calcium) in the area where the inner channel was supposed to be.  The MRI would see the three various levels of the artery as less dense material, so the MRI would see the differentiation of density -- the MRI would "see" the calcium (perhaps with cholesterol mixed in, of course) clogging the inner channel of the artery.

It looks pretty logical, doesn't it!

The traditional explanation of heart attack, using the above image as a reference is:

If the clot does not fully close off the channel of the artery (as in [one] the example above) enough blood flow is maintained to the heart muscle and a heart attack may not develop if appropriate and prompt treatment is employed.

However, the clot may continue to grow in many cases. This can completely fill the open channel of the artery and cut off blood flow to the part of the heart muscle that it is supplying. Without oxygen and nutrients, the patient suffers from a heart attack and the involved heart muscle can get permanently damaged.

The good news is that there are several forms of treatment that can get rid of the blood clot and restore flow across the artery.

However, this can only be employed if the patient is rushed to the emergency room of the nearest hospital. Every minute counts in salvaging heart muscle.  (click here)

One of the common methods of measuring plaque is to use the Magnetic Resonance Imaging device.  Ultra sound is cheaper, probably more accurate and not dangerous, but MRI is more popular.

So, let's take a look at exactly what an MRI looks for and at.

Here is one quote relative to this:

HAT CAN IT TELL?
The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination maps the soft tissues of the body with exquisite detail. It is helpful in the diagnostic evaluation of the head, chest, heart, abdomen, extremities, and other body systems. The brain and spinal cord are especially well seen by MRI.  Differentiation between gray and white matter of the brain is easy with MRI, as is the demonstration of swelling and demyelination (multiple sclerosis, etc.).

The test may help answer problems which are difficult or impossible to solve by other imaging methods. In many cases, the information gathered enhances and complements the results obtained by computerized tomography (CT) and ultrasound examinations.  (source)

The issue of "tissue differentiation" is one of recognized importance to the MRI people.  Here is a quote that reflects that:

Clinical MRI Applications

MRI's multi-planar capabilities and sensitivity to tissue differentiation makes it the procedure of choice for detecting abnormalities or lesions in most parts of the body.  (source)

Click here for an article on the need for better "edge differentiation" in the MRI.

What we are driving toward is the answer to the question of whether an MRI can distinguish between calcium (usually showing up as a white layer in the MRI) which is INSIDE a single cell, or calcium which is on the inside of the inner layer.

The quote just above continues, on that page, to brag about the great accuracy of differentiating between various types of tissues, for instance in the brain, spine, etc.  These people DO describe how they examine an artery.

MR Angiography (MRA)

MRI is now able to utilize the blood as its own contrast agent to evaluate the blood vessels of the head and neck.

This technique is known as MR angiography (MRA).  [MRA stands for an MRI test LIKE an angiogram where dye is injected into a vein to provide contrast between whatever is in the artery (calcium?) and the blood going through the artery.]

MRA can evaluate blood vessels of the head and neck without injecting the patient with a contrast agent.

This non-invasive technique requires only one additional set of pictures taken in addition with a standard MRI exam.

MRA of the head and neck can help detect vessel narrowing (stenosis), blood vessel blockage, cerebral aneurysm, arteriovenous malformation (AVM), and blood vessel dissection.  (source) 

Just so you know what we are up against, here is the image associated with the MRI for the arteries -- an image which, obviously, only an expert could understand.

Just at first glance, this image appears to show arteries (?), and it appears to show "white sections" of those "strings" ("arteries" ??).  One can assume that the white is where the calcium shows up, and that the thickness of these strings, compared with some "standard" of the thickness in a normal artery -- that these would show where the calcium is and how much is there.

Frankly, this image was not very helpful to me, so I continued to search for more useful data and images.

You should realize that an MRI measurement depends on DIFFERENCES.  If there is some brain tissue, for instance, which is normal and healthy, and next to it is some brain tissue which is diseased, in most cases the diseased tissue will be different in density, color, texture or shape -- or all four.  The MRI sees the "difference" between the two types of "tissue."

That is why an "angiogram" starts by injecting some dye into your arteries.  Then, they take an X-Ray picture of your arteries. The X-Ray can "differentiate" between the dark colored dye and the lighter colored calcium apparent deposit on the INSIDE of the inner wall of the artery.  With this difference plain to see they next measure, with great accuracy, the width of the open part of the artery -- the area on the inside dyed area.  Around this dark area will be the white area of the blockage.

So, an MRI must be able to see two different things in order to measure.  The MRI was described above as superior to the angiogram because, in part, no dye is needed.  The MRI can tell the difference between the artery and the blood inside the artery.  If the area for that blood is "narrow" and the total area for the artery is "wide" the MRI would conclude that there is blockage of the artery.

Because these tests have been done many thousands of times, the testers know what the average diameter of an artery in various places within the body are.  Let's say that the healthy artery is 3 cm wide, with an open channel of 2 cm?  Then if the artery they are looking at has a width of 3 cm, but an open channel of 1 cm? They might say that this part of the artery is 50% blocked, compared with normal.

They ASSUME that the blockage consists of a build-up of the calcium-cholesterol layers.  After all, on the MRI this area is bright white (which is how calcium shows up) and then there is a darker area, inside the white, where the blood is.  Outside the white area (calcium) is the edge of the artery (darker than the calcium but not as dark as the blood).

When I first learned this, many years ago, and then also learned that "intravenous chelation therapy" worked, I just figured, like many IV doctors now still claim, that IV chelation removes this layer of calcium within the inner channel of the artery.  That was, after all, what my hero, Dr. Elmer Cranton had said in the First Edition of his Book, Bypassing Bypass.

In the First Edition of my Book, Life Flow One, I made this same (wrong) claim.  In my famous cassette tape lecture (on oral chelation) which many thousands of people have listened to, recorded in 1984 (!) I made this same claim -- that oral chelation removed the calcium (with cholesterol) that was deposited on the inside of the artery channel.  I was wrong.  (I still use that tape, even though SOME of the data in it is wrong!)

Then I discovered a "terrible truth," that the EDTA used in IV chelation does NOT remove calcium, but rather removes heavy metals.  Several years ago there was hardly a single person saying this was true.  Dr. Elmer Cranton was the first brave IV doctor, in the Second Edition of his Book, Bypassing Bypass, who described part of the process.

When I read Dr. Cranton's Second Edition of his Book, I realized that a major part of my own Book was wrong and I wrote the Second Edition of my Book -- acknowledging Dr. Cranton as the source for my new understanding.  He is still my hero, even though I disagree strongly with him on a couple important issues.

So, says I to myself, if EDTA does NOT remove the calcium, how does the calcium get removed.

In Dr. Cranton's Second Edition he didn't quite explain this.  He has allowed that book to go out of print, and has his third book on this subject now available -- he tells the truth, but it is so complex that few will get the straight scoop out of it!  There is a Chapter from that Book HERE.  (When and if you read this page, you'll find some inserted material to help define terms.  The link to those definitions is HERE, and interesting in and of itself.)

After all, there is no shred of doubt that IV chelation greatly improves blood flow, and when another MRI is done, or ultrasound, the results show that the blockage is gone!

The calcium disappeared, yet EDTA does not remove calcium!

In fact, here are the metals that ARE removed by EDTA.   A more detailed explanation of this is here.  What happens is that the EDTA grabs, say, iron, and when if then bumps into Cobalt, it lets go of the iron and hangs onto the cobalt.  Thus, the metal for which EDTA has the greatest affinity is chromium.  There is more to this here.  The list below shows the metals in decreasing order of affinity by EDTA.

Chromium
Iron
Mercury
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Cobalt 
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Calcium 
Magnesium

How could this be?  The plaque disappears, but EDTA takes out calcium as almost the least likely metal!!

I knew that EDTA removed metal (not calcium).  I then did more research and discovered that Cysteine and N Acetyl Cysteine ALSO removed metals, not calcium.  As I learned from Dr. Cranton, it was these metals in the body that caused an acceleration of the production of free radicals, and I had to go learn about them!

(These metals get dumped into your body from the mercury leaking out of your fillings, from the lead in the smog, from all sorts of chemicals that didn't exist 200 years ago.  Your body has become a dump ground!)

The sticking point always was that there was no explanation of how the calcium blockage, the "plaque," could be removed.  Even though I was selling lots of oral chelation bottles during that time I was still puzzled.  Finally I realized that the free radical activity would NOT cause a build-up of layers of calcium on the inside of the artery, but could, indeed, cause damage to the very tiny parts of individual cells.  For instance, every cell has a "DNA" which is easily damaged by free radicals.

At that time I have never heard of the "calcium pump."

I have had some research to do!

That was my position, then, that the free radicals damaged the individual cells -- inside the cell -- making the cell weak or whatever -- so that the cell accumulated too much calcium INSIDE the cell (not inside the "channel"), and that as the metals were removed, the free radical activity reduced, the cells came back to health, and it was then the cells, themselves, which kicked out the calcium -- allowing blood flow to increase.

Only as I did the research for THIS article did I start finding more accurate information about what specific damage these free radicals can do inside a cell -- and finding out about the "calcium pump" from Dr. Cranton's latest Book, was a great clue for my further research (all described below).

But, I knew that I had to get evidence that the "plaque" that was being seen by the MRI tests was INSIDE the individual cells, and that has led to lots of further research and writing of this major article.

---

I soon realized that the MRI can't possibly distinguish the thickness (or color) of the wall of the individual cells in the artery.

If there is a cell that is FULL of calcium, and another cell that has just the normal amount of calcium in it, these two cells will look quite different to the MRI, but the MRI can't tell if the calcium is inside the cell, or outside.  There is not enough differentiation there.

To prove this, let's look further.  Start with the thickness of a cell wall.  Click here to see a text-book explanation of various cell membrane thicknesses.  Here is one quote from that source:

"The cell-membrane is exceedingly thin, far below the limit of measurement by the optical microscope; but whether we can actually see a cell-membrane or not in any particular cell, we are compelled by convincing evidence to postulate the existence of a thin surface layer having different characters from the material within."  (Source)

The actual thickness of the cell membrane, from the above source, is shown to be about 3 nm to 10 nm.  What is an "nm?"  That is a "nanometer."  The prefix "nano" means "one billionth."  Thus one nanometer is one one/billionth of a meter.  Just take my word for it, that is small.  Here is another way of understanding this.  Even a wizard couldn't see it!

That same source shows:

. . . the thickness of cell membranes are thinner than the wavelength of visible light (about 200 nm); they couldn't be seen with the visible light microscope, or even the ultra-violet microscope.  (Source)

So, can the MRI distinguish something as small as 10 nanometers?  No!  Even if the "thing" that is this small is not dense at all, and next to it is a rather large layer of dense calcium? What would the MRI see?  it would see the calcium, for sure, but never "see" the wall of the cell.

If you have some dark substance, and next to it some light colored substance, and in between you have a "wall" that is the thickness of the cell membrane, how easy will it be to see the membrane.  You won't!  You'll see the division line between the two substances, but not the thin line.  The human hair is about 100 times thicker than a spider web!  The cell membrane is about as thick as a spider web!

Now, let's put some white colored calcium in an area.  Some of the calcium is INSIDE cells, and other calcium is "lumped together" in a layer of calcium (and cholesterol) NOT inside any cells.  The MRI cannot see those cell membranes, so as far as the MRI is concerned ALL the calcium is the same.   Where is it?  The MRI cannot tell you that.

Well, the doctors who invented the original lies about cholesterol causing heart disease, and invented "plaque" had to make the location on the outside of the cells in order for it to fit the logic of warning you against eating eggs and butter.  The picture on the left is Dr. Scott M. Grundy, from the American Heart Association.  He was the original author of the diet that is killing America.  He is one of the TROLLS I wrote about.

You see how insidious this is!

Carrying this research further, let's look at MRIs and how well they are able to differentiate in various situations.  The failures at differentiation are well recognized among MRI experts.  Click here for an explanation of the many different categories of failure for MRI Imaging.  Click here for another page of examples of failed MRI imaging.

---

The idea that "plaque" was some sort of coating on the surface of the inner lining of the artery was picked up very early in the history of intravenous chelation therapy.  When IV chelation was first being used, it was to remove toxic lead from the body -- there is no controversy over that use and its efficiency.  That usage has been well-accepted for 60 years.  But, the early cases where lead-toxicity was being treated also showed reduction in problems related to heart disease -- in other words, IV chelation to remove lead also (unexpectedly) improved blood circulation.  At that time here was the conclusion:

The origins of chelation therapy

EDTA was first used medically in the 1940s to treat workers from battery factories who had developed lead poisoning. In the early 1950s, Dr. Norman Clarke, Sr., director of research at Providence Hospital in Detroit, Michigan, was using EDTA for lead poisoning and found that his patients also reported less pain from angina (chest pain due to blocked arteries). In addition, they noted improved memory; better sight, hearing, and smell; and an increase in energy.

Note: The picture on the left was an early rendering of the Providence Hospital -- then an insane asylum!

At the time Clarke and other doctors postulated that it was EDTA's effect on calcium within the body that might account for these results. They theorized that, during chelation, the EDTA could be grabbing onto the calcium within the arterial plaque lining blood vessels and removing it, the way it removed lead in poisoning cases.

With the calcium gone, they felt, the plaque dissolved, circulation improved (not only to the heart, but also to the brain, eyes, and other organs) and patients reported feeling better. One writer at the time even dubbed chelation therapy "a Roto-Rooter for the arteries." Unfortunately, X-rays and biopsies later showed that chelation had no effect at all on calcium within the arteries, and this early theory was discounted.  (source)

Unfortunately many chelation doctors and even many oral chelation products are still making this outdated and false claim of how chelation works.  I wrote an article about this in 2000 -- click here.

The same source as the excerpt just above goes on to describe the next theory as to why and how chelation therapy "works."

A second, more widely accepted theory--and one that continues to be popular--suggests that, by removing toxic metals, the EDTA also removed a significant source of destructive oxygen molecules known as free radicals. With free-radical production slowed, the arteries could then heal, shedding their plaque and lessening the symptoms of heart disease. Today antioxidant vitamins are thought to play a key roll in "mopping up" free radicals throughout the body and, for this reason, large doses of antioxidants are typically administered along with the EDTA. (source)

This "more widely accepted theory" is still misleading and false.  Notice that this theory has the arteries "shedding their plaque."  There is no known mechanism by which plaque (within the orthodox definition of "plaque") can be "shed".  That is why I, Karl Loren, have exposed the lies about the definition of "plaque" in the article on this page.

Many intravenous chelation doctors and many oral chelation sources repeat this false data about how chelation works.  Click here to see a sampling of those false claims.   As you'll see on that page, even some doctors and scientists who know better have allowed their names to be associated with these false and unscientific explanations.

Probably the continuing hero and one of the few intravenous chelation doctors to stay up with the research and study of plaque is Dr. Elmer Cranton.  Click here for a Chapter from his text book on Chelation therapy, in which he writes:

Free radicals also cause tissue calcification by damaging the integrity of cell membranes, causing leaks in cell walls, and by damaging enzymatic cell-wall transport pumps. If the calcium pump is weakened, or if cell wall integrity is damaged, the calcium pump becomes unable to remove calcium as it leaks in. Intracellular calcium accumulates, causing malfunction and eventually cell death. X-rays of older people commonly show dense calcium deposits in soft tissues that do not normally have that bony appearance. A similar weakening of the sodium pump in cell walls allows an increase of intracellular sodium, leading to swelling of the cell, edema, and eventual cell lysis.  (source)

[Karl Note:  Swelling of individual cells can explain how the MASS of the so-called plaque is so large.  As a cell is damaged, and starts accumulating excessive calcium, it can increase in size considerably.   After all the "wall" of a cell is almost in the form of a "liquid" and can change in size with ease.  Click here for a study on this.]

and

Free radical damage to the calcium-magnesium pump allows excessive calcium to diffuse into the cell. Calcium is 10,000 times more concentrated outside the cell than inside. The calcium pump must constantly work against this gradient. The reverse is true of magnesium. If the pump cannot prevent calcium from leaking into cells, and keep magnesium from leaking out, the cell becomes poisoned and soon dies.   (source)

The calcium outside the cells in the artery is 10,000 more times concentrated than INSIDE the cell.  Obviously if we can reduce the free radical damage to these cells, these "calcium pumps" won't be damaged and that excessive calcium will NOT get inside the cell.  Or, if excessive calcium HAS gotten inside the cell, and the free radical damage is greatly reduced, then that calcium pump can start working again, reduce the concentration of calcium inside the cell -- low and behold! The plaque is gone!  Click here for a page presenting several scientific reports on how a "calcium pump" can be damaged by free radicals and thereby cause heart disease -- from an excessive accumulation of calcium -- but also how the damage can be reversed when the free radical bombardment is stopped.

You have most of the whole story now.

Heart disease is NOT caused by eating eggs or butter.  The so-called "plaque" which blocks the arteries is actually located within individual cells, mostly still alive, but very weak, which are engorged with calcium, swell in size and "protrude" into the inner channel, causing the blockage.

This protrusion can be extremely large -- enough to cause a 100% blockage in the artery.

Or, there is a new type of "plaque," which is mostly contained within one of the layers of the artery, and does NOT yet protrude into the channel where blood flows -- this is called "vulnerable plaque."

---

Vulnerable Plaque

There is a relatively new term being used by cardiologists.  This first came to my attention when the then-President of the American Heart Association, Dr. Valentin Fuster, wrote an article describing it.  That article is HERE.  In that article he really grabbed my attention when he said:

Up to half of all coronary artery bypass surgeries fail. In these surgeries, portions of veins are surgically inserted to bypass clogged blood vessels to the heart.  (source)

He went on to announce a NEW concept in heart disease -- called "Vulnerable Plaque," which, he said, was the REAL cause of heart attacks!

Click here to view several different images of vulnerable plaque inside arteries.

The public gets fed a constant stream of false data about plaque of all sorts, and even of "vulnerable plaque."  Here is a quote from an ABC News source:

     Heart researchers are focusing on "vulnerable plaques," buildups of fatty tissue in blood vessels that can unexpectedly rupture, causing as many as two-thirds of all heart attacks.  Source

So, I decided that I had to ALSO research into this "new type of plaque." 

I would agree that there is such a thing as "vulnerable plaque" but simply state that it, like any other so-called "plaque" exists and was created INSIDE individual cells, and is NOT some sort of "build up" on the inner lining of the artery.

My findings are detailed HERE.  That page indicates that the vulnerable plaque is very probably INSIDE individual cells, as I have been indicating in this article.  So, this appears to be the opening salvo by one of the few doctors who is looking for better answers.  He still needs to understand the role of toxic metals, and the benefit of oral chelation, but the world IS changing to come into agreement with my view of heart disease.

Another of my medical heroes is Dr. Garry F. Gordon.  It was he who got me started using oral EDTA.  It was he who quit the association of IV doctors in disgust when they wouldn't even listen to him about the benefits of using oral EDTA, and it is Dr. Gordon who also endorses the vital importance of vulnerable plaque.

But, poor 'ole Doc. Gordon has refused to look at the underlying lies.  He says "vulnerable plaque" is the new culprit, but he also indicates that this plaque is also "built up" on the inner lining of the artery.  Here is a quote from an article in the Wall Street Journal when the broad public exposure of this new concept hit the media:

The hypotheses from these scientists are startling, and none more so than this: The body's defense system -- there to protect it from harm -- is a key culprit in heart attacks. It can cause small arterial deposits to suddenly rupture like popcorn kernels, choking off the blood supply to the heart.   Source

Dr. Gordon says that chelation therapy will handle the problem -- and it will, but NOT because it is going to REMOVE this vulnerable plaque, but only because the chelation therapy removes METALS, etc.  Here is what Dr. Gordon says:

Read the American Heart Association's own book:  Vulnerable Plaque by Valentin Fuster.   It exposes the facts your heart surgeon WON'T TELL!  If he did tell, no one would take even a 1% chance of dying needlessly under the knife.  Heart surgeons can't show that you live significantly longer because of these dubious operations.  Try every non-surgical approach first: from the oral program explained here (which can be safely taken with all other therapies) to the intravenous therapy espoused by the American College of Advancement in Medicine  before you EVER get on an operating table!  (source)

I'm reminded of the campaign the EGG INDUSTRY engaged itself upon.   It is well known that eggs contain lots of cholesterol.  The Surgeon General of the US, the puppet controlled by Dr. Troll Lenfant, told us that you shouldn't eat eggs!  So, the egg industry was faced with a big problem.  Its very existence was being threatened.  Most of the people who knew ANYTHING about eggs, and history, knew that eggs could not possibly be a cause of heart disease.

But, what were they to do!

They decided to "invent" a "new egg" that was "lower in cholesterol!"  What a farce!  (Actually, the egg people started promoting use of "egg whites" instead of the whole egg.  You see it now, all over the place.  "Egg Beaters!")

So, I suggest that Dr. Garry F. Gordon, one of the founders of the IV doctors, ACAM, and one of the foremost experts on chelation therapy, gives aid and comfort to the enemy when he endorses the concept of "vulnerable plaque."  It is NOT that "vulnerable plaque" doesn't exist -- I suppose it does.  The point is that chelation therapy cannot remove hunks of calcium and other junk, claimed to make up the so-called "vulnerable plaque."  Chelation therapy ONLY removes metals -- end of story.  So, if chelation therapy removes metals, how is it that the "vulnerable plaque" disappears?  Well, could it be because that "plaque" is really inside cells that are still alive, and that when those cells are no longer being bombarded by free radicals they kick out the excessive calcium, etc., and the "vulnerable plaque" disappears!

The whole truth is what is needed here, not just a new "low-cholesterol egg!"

---

Calcium Blockers -- Beta Blockers?

Calcium enters into a cell through the calcium pump, and that is often referred to as the calcium channel.  As I've described above, when that calcium pump (channel) is damaged by free radicals, excessive calcium can enter the cell, causing "plaque" inside that cell.  That's not where the doctor says the plaque is, but you can see the logic and truth of it all now!

Calcium channel blockers are also used to reduce blood pressure.  You can see that if a cell has a very large and excessive amount of calcium INSIDE the cell, it would likely swell in size and require increased pressure in the blood stream to move through the area.  So, if you can block the calcium going INTO the cell, then you can prevent high blood pressure -- so they think!

Calcium blockers are also considered to prevent angina pain.

Different types of channel blockers for different problems.   Click here for a complete coverage of typical calcium blockers.  There are many very angry people claiming that various of these drugs cause infertility, cancer and even heart disease. They are still widely used.

It seems that calcium blockers are the universal remedy for heart problems, but the universal cause of excessive calcium is NOT publicized!  Get rid of those metals!

The drug companies couldn't prevent this problem if they tried, since there is no drug that will prevent the free radical attack, or, for that matter, reduce the free radicals, or, for goodness sakes, eliminate the toxic metals that cause them.  So, drugs are out of the picture on handling plaque.

What can a drug do?

Well, AFTER the damage has been done to the calcium pump (channel) in the cell, some drug can be designed which might prevent calcium from moving through that channel.

Hurray!

That is like having a house that can catch on fire, full of furniture and combustible stuff -- the drug company comes along and says, here is a glass of water you can pour on the pillow so that it won't burn so fast in the fire! Why not prevent the fire from starting in the first place? Drugs can't do that.

So, Channel Blockers, or Beta Blockers are very late in the chain of help.  After the horses are gone? They close the barn door, just a bit!

They are like a Band Aide on a gushing artery!

---

Autopsies -- The Search For The Best Measure Of Plaque

I recall seeing a photograph many, many years ago -- probably in Time Magazine.  (Hold your mouse on the link to get the exact date of the issue, not available on line.)  I've looked and can't find it on line, but I do remember that this photo showed some messy-looking pictures of arteries, in a dead body.  The doctor involved had opened up the body of a person who had died of heart disease -- to pull out the arteries and examine them for "plaque."

At fist I thought that these examinations might well "find" the cell membranes and announce that all the plaque was OUTSIDE the individual cells.  I have studied that subject now quite thoroughly.  Click here for my study results.

The conclusion is that even though an autopsy is considered the "gold standard" of technique of examining "plaque" when you read how this is done you quickly conclude that those doing the autopsies are no more able to detect the wall of a cell than can an MRI image.  You have the further truth that the walls of the cells are living things, and when the body dies the cell membrane would undoubtedly start to disintegrate. Since they are almost completely "liquid" there would be very little disintegration needed before the "plaque" which had been inside a living cell was now just a lump of calcium in the mass or dead arterial material.

No, the autopsy is NOT the way to find out WHERE the plaque might have been.  It may be fine to tell HOW MUCH plaque there was, but not WHERE it was.

So, in any of many further explorations into this subject called "plaque" there is no where to be found any data that refutes the possibility that all this so-called "plaque" is actually INSIDE cells, not outside them.

---

The so-called "plaque" does NOT exist in the location and form you have been led to believe as true.  Indeed there is excessive calcium that protrudes into the inner channel of the artery, causing blockage and reducing blood circulation, the solution to this IS NOT a cholesterol-lowering drug, but the removal of the metals from your body.

I suppose I needn't say it again, but this is so different from what the cardiologist tells you that I repeat it now.

These metals are the substances increasing the number and activity of free radicals, and it is the free radical damage to the inside of the cell that causes it to accumulate calcium (blockage) and cause heart disease.  There is ONLY ONE way to get rid of those metals.  No drug will do it.  No surgery will do it!  No special diet will do it!  ONLY chelation therapy will do it!

Tell this to your doctor and see what he has to say.