Use of nanoparticles for detection of vascular calcification in atherosclerosis | Hacker News Reader

Use of nanoparticles for detection of vascular calcification in atherosclerosis

pubs.rsc.org

36 pointsbookofjoe21 comments

Assuming they find calcified plaques, then what? Can they be reversed once they're calcified?

No, as far as I know. But you can't improve what you can't measure.

No they cant. But detection is paramount. CT Scans are costly and time consuming.

Yes, some people keep magnesium, K2 MK-7, K2 MK-4 and D3 in their system to slowly break it down. This is done primarily to reverse the calcification in and around the heart to get a lower CAC score. Ideal score is 0.

is there any proof "magnesium, K2 MK-7, K2 MK-4 and D3" works for this?

Does this really work? First time I am hearing of this(would be estatic if it did).

Yes, there are hundreds of write-ups / studies on nih.gov that explain the process and results. [1] Just one example [2]

[1] - https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=si...

[2] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6112404/

Your second citation is an ongoing trial, it doesn’t have results. Not to say it’s wrong, just that you might want to pick a better example that shows it works.

I just linked the first one that comes up in search results. There are literally hundreds of studies on this. I personally know doctors that have lowered blood pressure in their patients using this method. I am also reversing my CAC score, albeit very slowly, but it's better than going up.

A more taboo topic is heart surgeons arguing about the usage of Serrapeptase and Nattokinase to remove scar tissue in the vascular system prior to heart surgery. None of them can agree on whether or not removing the scar tissue makes the surgery safer or more dangerous.

Sure, I am just very skeptical of a lot medical research involving vitamins and your first link didn't work on my mobile and the second wasn't results, so I was hoping to see some legitimate studies.

I have firsthand seen several major shifts in vitamins and nutrition in medicine. For example, vitamin D was heavily promoted in the early 2000s for a lot of indications that appeared back by research that in the end was fraud (see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/researcher-center-ep...).

Vitamin C also was heavily promoted by Linus Pauling but ended up being flat, although now we are seeing a resurgence in the belief that it plus thiamine and steroids can help with septic shock (look up https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(16)62564-3/f...). This is being heavily debated right now.

I looked at three papers in the first link but none showed actual results, just hypothetical improvements.

I'm happy it appears to be helping you CAC, how often are you getting CACs?

I can only do the test once per year without the insurance company pushing back. Yes the vitamin C studies were quite flawed, especially since they were using ascorbic acid and not real vitamin C. Ascorbic acid is just the outer layer and is missing many components. I would love to see the tests done using the real deal.

I too am a skeptic about many things. I've had no choice but to get into self research and self improvements, or I would be stuck right where I was, in the middle of a failed medical system. If it were up to them, I would just be taking BP meds for the rest of my life. The doctors back them expected me to last another five years. That was several years ago. I refuse to play that game. It would take an hour to explain all the things I am doing. People that have known me for a long time are seeing the results. I look and feel 20 years younger. I have started educating some of the doctors at Stanford about nutrition and a few of them are actually very open to learning new things.

I just wonder sometimes about the rationale behind some of these tests like coronary artery calcium scoring, where it is relatively new and we don't as much data about how useful it is to measure year to year results as an accurate prognosis indicator. We do have data that it can be used for risk stratification for heart attack and stroke, but as far as I know there is a lot less data on getting serial examinations in a way that ends up being more useful than the initial one, but maybe that research is being done.

I found one commentary on a paper evaluating it: https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/139983-utility-of-seria...

It probably doesn't matter, but getting a CAC does involve a little extra radiation each year, so I kind of worry about what benefit you are getting: ie hypothetical benefit of monitoring risk vs hypothetical risk of radiation exposure.

The radiation does concern me as well, especially since the vit-d and bpc-157 are proangiogenic. That said, I have completely removed sugar and carbs from my dietary intake and I use AGE+curcumin to break down biofilm from senescent cells and use Sulforaphane plus Myrosinase to up-regulate NRF2 which in turn increases cellular autophagy and apoptosis of senescent cells. I suppose time will tell if my actions are beneficial.

Sounds like you’ve done way more research on this and could teach me arching or two. I hope you record your results to benefit other people!

Do you have a blog? I would love to read more about what you are doing and gain some knowledge as well.

The two links cited refer to aortic stenosis or valvular heart disease, which is different in management and treatment from the target of the article under discussion. As important as valvulopathies are, atherosclerotic heart and cerebral diseases are larger causes of morbidity and mortality. Being able to evaluate all the risk factors, can lead to better management and prevention.

What is the clinical significance of the plaque being calcified? Is that worse (or better?) than "regular" cholesterol plaque? Or is that just another term for the same thing?

Not a doctor, but my understanding is that the calcification is a later stage of damage. Basically you get Inflammation, Plaques, Calcification in that order.

Someone more educated should chime in, or that could serve as a basis for starting your own learning

Wild guess, it's a less flexible tissue state and may be near rupture.

From what I recall calcified arteries don't absorb blood waves and can transmit pressure downstream to fragile cells.

The significance of obtaining a more accurate calcium score is in the stratification of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. The calcium score has been correlated with higher risk for myocardial infarctions and strokes, but is just one of many factors guiding prevention. In the case where a patient has other concomitant risks such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, the clinician may advice more aggressive management. An example: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/915230

Would this complement a CAC test?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com