Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home


From: Jon (67.161.11.165)
Subject:         Heart Attack Proof and 100% Success Rate, vs Study results
Date: January 11, 2009 at 1:53 am PST

In Reply to: Re: My Experience & Why I Follow A VLF Pgm Strictly posted by herman on January 4, 2009 at 7:33 am:

Heart Attack Proof and 100% Success Rate, vs Study results

Hi Herman (and Ricardo),

Re Herman's question on studies, it is a minor inconvenience that the only paper seems to be
Esselstyn's, which was after 12 years.

But it is not a serious problem, IMO.

Esselstyn has shown three things -
1. Three weeks to heart-attack proof.

2. Three years to reversal visible on an angiogram - for a special case - Dr. Joe Crowe. (1% death
rate for angiogram test. AKA shoving a coat hanger up your leg, into and around your heart).

Multi-slice ECT(?) a better bet today IF you have to have it. Non-invasive. See Dr. McD Heart
book for advisability of unnecessary tests. And particularly of where they lead to ...

3. 17 patients - 100% still going strong at year 12. 7 quit from 24 starters. 16 patients - 100%
still going strong at year 20. Loss of one was a patient badly damaged previously by a heart
attack. Not relevant to E's diet cure.


By diet alone we can have 1) heart attack proof in three weeks and 3) 100% still with the program
at year 12 and year 20, with 100% compliance.

The only one we don't get (easily) is 2) Visible reversal on a test.
1. ANY mortality on such a test makes it very dubious unless absolutely required for health
reasons, and not just for curiosity.
2. The best examination of all would be during an autopsy. Not a great (voluntary) option either.
3. Best forget about visible reversal on a test, IMO. Some cardiologists like it. Because they know
that the AHA diet guarantees progression of the disease? Or because it earns them considerable
dollars?

Patients following E's diet are an unknown quantity to most cardiologists, IMO. They don't know
about the possible results. Some aren't even willing to change their "cut the chest open" verdict,
regardless of diet, or evidence that diet is working.

4. NOT knowing about visible reversal on a test is likely to further ensure 100% compliance with
the diet. Perverse? Yes. Useful? Probably.


It may be unkind to mention it, but being over 40 I like to remind myself -

"Mind you there is something to be said for knowing which particular tiger is going to get you. If
you comply with the diet then it won't be the heart disease tiger. But some other tiger, that you
haven't yet seen. But it IS out there, somewhere, and get you it will. Fun now, or fun later. :-)"

"When the hunter finally sees the tiger, the tiger has seen the hunter one hundred times. But I
digress."


Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home


Follow Ups:



Post Reply

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: