Frodo wrote:On this occasion: You also claimed that VC and iodine should not be taken together. Lynne Farrow gave a convincing answer (see the post about it). I see her laughing.
I think now you misunderstood what I said:
pamojja wrote:Frodo wrote:How do you know?
Also it's pretty obvious if one adds any vitamin C with lugol's solution in water, its color immediately disappears. Though the iodide is still beneficial, just the specific benefits of iodine are less.
That isn't an behavioral advise to anyone at all. That is just what's happens. That's why I take them separate. And I even agree with Farrow that before one doesn't take iodine due to that complexity, it's better just to ignore that chemical reaction and take them together. I take iodine separate. And iodide together with vitamin C.
Frodo wrote:Dear pamojja
I think you haven‘t understood my basic question at all. Which is: Are LP and Matthias Rath right with their insights and theory, especially that lp(a) is a surrogate for ascorbate. I am convinced of it and I hope they are right.
Against this background I asked if all people with atherosclerosis have high lp(a).
Lp(a) is not the only surrogate for ascorbate. That is where more complexity comes in, and why I mentioned other factors. In some individuals it might, in others other factors are also at play, and blood levels of ascorbate never correlate to those of Lp(a).
Not all people with atherosclerosis have high Lp(a). And some people without atherosclerosis have high Lp(a) too. That has already been measured countless times. And I'm not interested in any pet theories - probably misunderstood too - but in what's true. Especially in that which has bearings on changing the outcome of the disease. And if or not all people with arteriosclerosis have or not have Lp(a), wouldn't change anything about that. But achieved Remission with the proper means.
Frodo wrote:Sorry, but I think you‘re fishing somewhere in the murky. I have no interest in such advice.
Sorry, but I think you misunderstood what others, like Farrow or Rath, said. And if you are interested or not - with which I'm always fine with - my interest is in adding an other perspective, so that each reader can decide for oneself who is fishing in the murky.