Boeknotities: Human Heart, Cosmic Heart: A Doctor’s Quest to Understand, Treat, and Prevent Cardiovascular Disease door Thomas Cowan

ma, 21/06/2021 - 16:03

Dit boek van Thomas Cowan benadert de problematiek van hartzieken op een heel bijzondere en fascinerende wijze. Deze andere kijk maakt het behandelen van deze ziekten misschien meer succesvol.

  • Eerst een leuke algemene beschouwing:
    But the main revelation here is that this system of hydrophilic tubes energized by the ambient sunlight, Earth energy, and the infrared wavelengths emanating from other living beings is really all that is needed in any biological system for the maintenance of abundant, robust, perpetual flow. The bulk water carries the waste and nutrients, and the structured layer creates the voltage or energy that runs the system. Like all living systems, we are powered by the Earth and sun.
  • Hoe werkt het hart eigenlijk?
    Something similar happens in the heart. The venous blood flows into the right atrium, the pressure in the right atrium builds up, then the gate (the tricuspid valve) opens, and the blood enters the right ventricle. But this isn’t all that happens. As the chestahedron model shows, fluid arriving into the right ventricle converts into a vortex before emerging out of the next gate (the pulmonary valve). This is the crucial point. There are two processes happening simultaneously. The first is the increase in momentum due to the hydraulic ram/gating mechanism described above. But along with the increase in momentum, the form of the blood changes from a laminar flow to a vortex. Furthermore, the activity of the right side of the heart converts the vertically oriented laminar flow of the venous blood to a vortex, a horizontal flow, as the blood goes from the right ventricle to the horizontally positioned lungs.
    The blood then travels through the lungs, again moving into the capillaries as a result of water’s—or, in this case, blood’s—fourth phase tendency to flow within hydrophilic tubes. I have never heard any other remotely possible explanations of how or why blood can move through the high-resistance environment of the lung capillaries. Remember that you have highly viscous blood with blood cells suspended in plasma and whose diameter is almost as large as the capillaries moving effortlessly through an extensive network of lung capillaries. Attributing this to the low pump pressure of the right ventricle would be like taking a mile-long hose, putting water and beads inside the hose where the beads are about the same size as the internal dimensions of the hose, giving a little push, and expecting the water and beads to travel a half mile—and then return the half mile back to the pump.
  • Het hart is geen pomp, maar eerder een spons:
    After the blood flows into the capillaries, it then continues its now horizontal flow back to the left atrium of the heart, which serves as a temporary holding area to store the energy of the flowing blood behind the mitral valve. The pressure builds up in the left atrium, the gate opens, and the blood flows into the left ventricle. Then—think now of the spinning chestahedron in water—the left ventricle converts this laminar flow into a vertically oriented vortex. This vortex flow, combined with the pressure buildup, opens the aortic valve, and the blood is released through the arteries to the rest of the body. Further evidence that the best model for the heart is a hydraulic ram and not a pump is the behavior of the aortic arch during contraction, known as systole. If the heart were a pump, you would expect that as the heart pumps blood through the aortic arch, the flexible arch would straighten with each forceful push. On the contrary, however, during this contraction, the aortic arch bends inward, forming a more acute angle. This can be seen on a routine angiogram.
  • Vertrekken de meeste hartoperaties vanuit een verkeerde theorie?
    A major report on the efficacy of bypasses, stents, and angioplasty that was issued by the Mayo Clinic in 2003 concluded that: 1. Bypass surgery relieves symptoms (chest pain). 2. Bypass surgery does not prevent future heart attacks. 3. Only high-risk patients, those whose life is in acute danger, benefit from bypass surgery (i.e., have improved chances of survival). In other words, the gold standard for treating arterial blockages—surgery—has, at best, only minimal benefits. This is because large, stable blockages—those that block more than 90 percent of the vessel—are in almost 100 percent of the cases completely compensated for by collateral blood vessels.6 In fact, the idea that the heart gets its blood only from the four major vessels is not correct. Starting soon after birth, the normal heart develops an extensive network of small blood vessels called collateral vessels, which compensate for the interruption of flow in any one (or more) of the major vessels. This compensation by collateral vessels can be seen clearly in a video (“Heart Catheter Film”) produced by Dr. Knut Sroka for his website As Sroka correctly points out in his video, coronary angiogram—which fails to show the collateral circulation and creates spasms in the coronary arteries through the injection of heavy dye under high pressure—is a notoriously inaccurate tool for assessing the amount of stenosis in the vessels and the amount of blood flow in the heart. Most bypasses, stents, and angioplasties are performed on minimally symptomatic patients who show a greater than 90 percent blockage in one or more coronary arteries. These arteries are almost always fully collateralized; the surgery does not restore blood flow because the body had already done its own bypass. Ask yourself: If it were true that an artery that was more than 90 percent blocked had no collateral circulation, how is that person still alive? Does it make sense that a person would have a heart attack when the stenosis goes from 93 percent to 98 percent? Yet this is what most of the procedures are meant to accomplish—to unblock the stenosis—which, as Sroka’s video shows, actually has no effect on the amount of blood flow. It is no wonder that in study after study, these procedures fail to provide any significant benefit to patients.
    In this trial, angiograms—injections of dye into the coronary arteries to detect blockages—were done on men presenting with chest pains. For the ones who had a single artery blocked, no treatment was prescribed, and the researchers predicted in their notes which part of the heart would have a subsequent heart attack if one occurred. Of course, all of the researchers predicted that the heart attack would take place in the part of the heart supplied by the blocked coronary artery. Many of the men did eventually have heart attacks, but to the researchers’ surprise, fewer than 10 percent had a heart attack in the area of the heart supplied by the original blocked artery.
  • Het lijkt er dan ook op dat zogenaamde aderverkalking minder belangrijk is dan gedacht:
    So, most of us can pretty much now agree that the long-standing focal point of cardiology—the stable, progressing, calcified plaque, the thing we bypassed and stented for years, the thing we do CT scans of your arteries for, the thing we told you is from cholesterol buildup in your arteries, the thing low-fat, highcarbohydrate, largely vegetarian diets such as the Ornish Program focused on—is actually not that important in the etiology of heart attacks.
  • Maar het medische paradigme is niet gemakkelijk te wijzigen:
    But conventional medical thinking is still focused on the arteries. Enter the unstable, or friable, plaque. This insidious fellow doesn’t actually create a large blockage; rather, it’s a soft, “foamy” plaque that under certain situations (we don’t know which situations) rapidly evolves and abruptly closes off the involved artery, creating a downstream oxygen deficit, followed by angina, then ischemia (a restriction of the blood supply). These soft plaques are thought to be a combination of inflammatory “buildup” and LDL, the two things we target with statin drugs. Therefore, the thinking goes, because this type of plaque can build up in anyone’s arteries, at any time, everyone should be on statin drugs to prevent heart attacks. (Some people even advocate putting therapeutic doses of statins in municipal water supplies.7) Angiogram studies are used to show the evolution of these unstable plaques as proof that they are the true cause of most heart attacks.
  • Bloedklonters zijn niet de oorzaak maar het gevolg van een hartaanval (het omdraaien van oorzaak en gevolg is een ware plaag in de medische wetenschap - zie bijvoorbeeld cholesterol, vrije radicalen en ja ...virussen):
    When a person suffers a heart attack, there is often the formation of a blood clot within a vessel of the heart (acute thrombosis), but it is a consequence, not the cause, of the attack. How often does this actually happen? Well, first off, it’s critical to look to pathology studies, which are the only accurate way to determine what actually happened, as opposed to angiograms, which are misleading and create many artifacts. Anytime you put heavy metal dye under high pressure into an artery (which is what an angiogram is), the artery reacts with a spasm. So imagine you have an artery, of which 50 percent of the cross section of the interior is blocked with plague. Then you push heavy dye into the artery, which causes the muscle wall of the artery to go into spasm; suddenly the interior dimension is narrower, but the amount of plaque doesn’t change, so it looks as though the plaque is blocking 70 percent or more of the artery. This is an “artifact” due to the spasm-inducing tendency of the test itself, which then leads to overattribution of the percentage of stenosis, or blockage.
  • Adervernauwingen blijken in een minderheid van hartaanvallen een rol te spelen:
    The first major pathology study of people who died of heart attacks was conducted in the 1970s. It concluded that stenosis sufficient to cause the heart attack was found in only 20 percent of cases.8 And in the largest such study ever done, examining the autopsies of patients who died of heart attacks—the results of which were published in 2004—Giorgio Baroldi and Malcolm D. Silver found sufficient stenosis to cause the heart attack in 41 percent of cases.9 They also found that the larger the area of necrosis, the more often a stenosis was present, and the longer the time between heart attack and death, the higher the percentage of stenosis—two findings that some subsequent researchers have used to artificially inflate the stenosis rates by focusing only on the cases of very significant heart attacks or those in which the patients lived a relatively long time after the event.
  • De toevoer van zuurstof verminderdt niet tijdens een hartaanval door geblokkeerd aders:
    In this paradigm, blocked arteries cause ischemia by cutting off the blood supply, thereby cutting off the supply of oxygen to the tissues. But when careful measurements assessing the oxygen (pO2) of the myocardial cells during a heart attack are taken, they show no oxygen deficit in an evolving heart attack.10 The oxygen levels do not change at all throughout the entire event. (I will return to this concept in chapter 7 when I describe what does change in every evolving heart attack ever studied.) If a coronary artery blockage is the mechanism by which the oxygen supply is cut off to the myocardial cells, but, in fact, the oxygen supply to the heart doesn’t change, then what exactly does happen to result in tissue necrosis in the heart?
  • Als thrombose hoogstens verantwoordelijk is voor de helft van de hartaanvallen waarvan kregen de overige 50% dan een aanval?
    Thrombosis associated with heart attacks is a real phenomenon, but in no pathological study has it been found in more than 50 percent of deaths, which begs the question: Why did the other 50 percent have a heart attack? Furthermore, it’s clear from pathology studies that thrombosis of significant degrees often evolves after the attack occurs, leading again to the question of what caused the heart attack in the first place. The fact that thrombosis correlates with heart attacks does explain why emergency procedures can be helpful immediately following a heart attack to restore blood flow in those patients who do not have adequate collateral circulation to that part of their heart. (Remember, the only patients who benefit from bypass and stents are the most critical, acute patients.) But if the coronary artery etiology paradigm of heart attacks is so fraught with inconsistencies and if it provides such an imperfect and unpersuasive explanation for the cause of heart attacks, the question remains: What does cause heart attacks?
  • Wat is dan een correcte theorie van hartziekten? (zie ook bvb. deze studie)
    Any accurate theory of the cause of myocardial infarction must account for the risk factors most associated with heart disease and heart attacks. These are being male, having diabetes, smoking cigarettes, and experiencing chronic psychological/emotional stress. Significantly, none of these risk factors is directly linked to pathology of the coronary arteries. Diabetes and cigarette use cause disease in the capillaries, not the large vessels, and stress has no direct effect on coronary arteries that we know of. Additionally, during the past five decades, the four main medicines of modern cardiology (beta-blockers, nitrates, aspirin, and statin drugs) all have some benefits for heart patients—albeit, all with serious drawbacks as well. This also needs to be accounted for in any comprehensive theory of the cause of heart attacks. The real revolution in the prevention and treatment of heart disease has to do with the autonomic nervous system. First, let’s review some brief (and admittedly oversimplified) background. We have two distinct nervous systems. The central nervous system controls conscious functions such as that of muscles and nerves. The autonomic (or unconscious) nervous system controls the function of our internal organs. The autonomic nervous system is divided into two branches, which in health are always in a balanced, but ready, state. The sympathetic, or fight-or-flight, system is centered in our adrenal medulla and uses the chemical adrenaline to tell our bodies that danger is afoot. It does so by activating a series of biochemical responses, the center of which are the glycolytic pathways that accelerate the breakdown of glucose to be used as quick energy so that we can make our escape. In contrast, the parasympathetic branch is centered in the adrenal cortex and uses the neurotransmitters acetylcholine, nitric oxide, and cyclic guanosine monophosphate as its chemical mediators. It is the rest-and-digest arm of the autonomic nervous system. The particular nerve of the parasympathetic chain that innervates the heart is called the vagus nerve. It slows and relaxes the heart, whereas the sympathetic branch accelerates and constricts the heart. It is the imbalance of these two branches that is responsible for most heart disease.
    Using heart-rate variability monitoring, which offers a real-time, accurate depiction of these two branches of the autonomic nervous system, four studies have shown that patients with ischemic heart disease have, on average, a reduction of parasympathetic activity of more than a third.1 Typically, the worse the myocardial infarction, the lower the parasympathetic activity.2 Furthermore, about 80 percent of ischemic events are preceded by chronic reductions in parasympathetic activity, which can be brought on by smoking, emotional stress, inactivity, poor diet, hypertension, or—often—a combination of these, followed by a significant, often drastic increase in sympathetic activity such as an acute traumatic event or physical exertion.3 People who have normal parasympathetic activity and then experience an abrupt increase in sympathetic activity (physical activity or, often, an emotional shock) don’t suffer from heart infarction. In other words, without a preceding decrease in parasympathetic activity, activation of the sympathetic nervous system does not lead to myocardial infarction.4 Human beings are meant to experience, and are fully capable of experiencing, times of excess sympathetic activity; that is normal life. What’s dangerous to our health is the ongoing, persistent decrease in our parasympathetic, or life-restoring, activity.
    In the vast majority of cases, the pathology proceeds because of decreased tonic activity of the parasympathetic nervous system. Then there is an increase in sympathetic nervous system activity, usually due to a physical or emotional stressor. This increases adrenaline production, which directs the myocardial cells to break down glucose using aerobic glycolysis. (Remember, there has been no change in blood flow as measured by the oxygen in the cells.) This redirects the metabolism of the heart away from its preferred and most efficient fuel sources, ketones and fatty acids. This explains why heart patients often feel tired before their events and why a diet of liberal amounts of fat and low in glucose is crucial for heart health.
    As a result of the sympathetic increase and resulting glycolysis, there is a dramatic increase in lactic acid production in the myocardial cells. This happens in virtually 100 percent of myocardial infarctions, with no coronary artery mechanism required.7 The increase in lactic acid results in localized acidosis, which makes calcium unable to enter the cells and the cells less able to contract.8 This inability to contract causes localized edema, hypokinesis or diminished muscle function in the walls of the heart (the hallmark of ischemic disease as seen on echocardiograms and nuclear thallium stress tests)—the build up of lactic acid in the cells and eventually causes necrosis of the tissue, which we call a heart attack.
    The localized tissue edema also alters the hemodynamics of the arteries embedded in that section of the heart, causing the pressure that ruptures unstable plaques, which further blocks the artery and worsens the hemodynamics in that area of the heart. This explanation is the only one that answers why plaques rupture, what their role in the myocardial infarction process is, and when and how they should be addressed (i.e., only in the most critical, acute situations). This is the only explanation that accounts for all the observable phenomena associated with heart disease.
  • Op basis van deze theorie ligt de remedie voor de hand: verzorg het parasymphatisch zenuwstelsel.
    If we want to prevent heart attacks, we must protect our parasympathetic activity, use medicines that support it, and nourish the heart with what it needs. Nourishing our parasympathetic nervous system means dismantling a way of life for which humans are ill suited. This way of life, in my view, is industrial civilization. The known things that nourish our parasympathetic nervous system are contact with nature, loving relations, trust, economic security, and sex—in a sense, a whole new world. The medicine that supports all aspects of the parasympathetic nervous system is a medicine from the Strophanthus plant called ouabain or g-strophanthin. G-strophanthin is an endogenous hormone made in our adrenal cortex from cholesterol—whose production is inhibited by statin drugs —which does two things that are crucial for heart health that no other medicine can do. First, it stimulates the production and liberation of acetylcholine, the main neurotransmitter of the parasympathetic nervous system. Second, and crucially, it converts lactic acid—the main metabolic poison in this process—into pyruvate, one of the main and preferred fuels of the myocardial cells. In other words, it converts a poison into a nutrient. Perhaps this “magic” is why Chinese medicine practitioners say that the kidneys (i.e., the adrenals, where ouabain is made) nourish the heart. In my years of using ouabain in my practice, I have not had a single patient who had a heart attack while taking it.
  • Ook ons dieet zullen we moeten aanpassen, maar niet zoals algemeen aangenomen:
    This understanding of heart disease also leads us to a heart-healthy diet, one that is rich with healthy fats and fatsoluble nutrients and is low in the processed carbohydrates and sugars that practically define industrial civilization.
    To reduce plaque, we need to support the formation of the exclusion zone, reduce the inflammation, and direct calcium to the correct place (the bones).
    But the simple bottom line is that regular contact with nature, exposure to the sun and the moon, contact with animals, and physical touch with other people is critical to our health.
  • Hoe inflammatie aanpakken? Lessen trekken uit de tradtionele levensstijl van onze voorouders: zij hadden immers een volledige afwezigheid van hartziekten:
    Inflammation in the joints results in arthritis, and in the blood vessels, it results in arteriosclerosis. A sounder approach than the use of toxic anti-inflammatory drugs is to rebalance the diet along the lines of the diets of traditional peoples, the very people who live long, healthy lives with a complete absence of heart disease.
  • Nog fundamenteler: leef volgens het geocentrisch ipv. heliocentrisch model:
    People who believe(d) in the geocentric model generally: • Lived in sustainable societies for thousands of years. • Often improved the health of the ecosphere, including plant, animal, and soil life, the more they engaged with it. • Did not cause widespread extinction of other animals or plants. • Had no toxic or carcinogenic chemicals in their breast milk. • Had no heart attacks—ever. People who believe(d) in the heliocentric model generally: • Live in unsustainable societies, compounding the depletion of stored resources each year. • Degrade the health of the biosphere to such an extent that it results in massive extinctions and widespread desertification. • Have numerous toxic and carcinogenic chemicals in their breast milk (or bodies, as the case may be). • Are at high risk of suffering a heart attack.
  • Het menselijk hart en de cosmos: een intigrerende connectie:
    The human heart is not simply embedded in the rhythms of the cosmos. Research from the HeartMath Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to bringing people’s physical, mental, and emotional systems into alignment with the heart’s intuitive guidance, has shown that the heart acts like a conductor in the body and other organs entrain on or pick up rhythms from it.5 In this way, these different organs are able to integrate into one whole, living system. A human being takes an average of 25,920 breaths per day (average 18 breaths/minute × 60 minutes × 24 hours); it takes the sun about the same number of years to traverse the twelve signs of the zodiac—the socalled Platonic year. The sun travels one degree of the zodiac every seventy-two years—the average approximate length of the human life. In these seventy-two years, there are about 26,000 days—the approximate number of breaths in a day or the time for the sun to make one complete cycle of the celestial world. Finally, between each cycle of inhalation and exhalation, there is a slight pause that helps prevent hyperventilation. There is a similar pause in the cycle of the year. At the solstice, the sun “rests” for a moment, and then swings back the other way (at least as observed by the human being from Earth).
  • Geld en gezondheid: kan het samen gaan?
    Since our relationship to money is so intimately connected to our health, I’ve always been interested in what money is, how it is controlled, and how it relates to the heart in particular. Our relationship to gold, especially, fascinates me. Gold (element 79, or Au) has, for millennia, been used as money and a symbol of power. This connection between gold and money persisted since well before Roman times until 1973 when Richard Nixon shocked the world and took the United States off the gold standard (although to some extent, it still remains). This marked the first time in American history that wealth had no official connection to gold and could not be redeemed for it. Most people would explain this long-standing connection between wealth and gold as having arisen because gold is relatively rare, immutable (it doesn’t deteriorate over time), and can be easily divided into any size you wish. Fair enough, but I am convinced that there is more to it than that. Pharaohs and kings have traditionally used gold to demonstrate their power and connection to the divine. Gold crowns have been the jewelry of choice, possibly because the crown of our heads also suggests a connection with authority and higher worlds. The story of gold shows up in places like the Old Testament, where Moses chides the people for worshipping the golden calf on their way out of Egypt and slavery. And it appears in fairy tales such as “Rapunzel,” suggesting a mysticism underlying the metal. Yet the reality is that besides being shiny and resistant to most Earth forces (think rust), there is not much you can do with gold. So what’s the big deal with gold? And what is money anyway?
    We live in a situation in which we have been fooled into thinking our money is made by the government—in other words, us—when in reality, most money is created out of thin air by a privately held bank called the Federal Reserve and the other chartered banks that rule international finance.11 This money they create is attached now to nothing, not even to gold. It is not connected to deposits made by depositors, not to assets, not to skill in money management. When you go to the bank for a loan or mortgage, they create the money they loan you. Then they add interest to ensure that there will never be enough money in the system to handle all the need. This is done by a stroke of the keyboard on the computer. The amazing part of this system of money creation is that most people accept it and some will give their lives to make sure it can continue. Money created in this way is completely imaginary. It is based on nothing in the “real” world. As with my above example, eventually the bankers will own everything, with the caveat that if they get too aggressive, the hoi polloi might rebel. The Bretton Woods Agreement of the 1940s established that most international trade, especially the crucial oil we use to power our economies, must be conducted in dollars. Since the United States is the only country that can create dollars, the rest of the world has to “work” to obtain our dollars. We will eventually make nothing and do nothing, and our culture will be devoted to money management. (Typically this is referred to in more dignified terms: We will be economists and financial planners.) If another country decides the system is rigged against them and tries to sell their wares in currency other than dollars, they will be targeted for regime change (a euphemism for taking a functional society—one that, while loaded with problems, has water, food, and housing for its people—and reducing it to rubble). When Saddam Hussein tried to sell oil in currencies besides dollars, it was time for regime change.12 When Qaddafi tried to start a pan-African currency to compete with the dollar, it was time for regime change.13 Iran, Russia, Syria, and perhaps China are next, subject to whether they decide to fall in line behind the dollar and the extent to which the population—both theirs and ours—can be manipulated or coerced. Don’t misunderstand me. This is not a vote of support or an excuse for the practices of these dictators or these countries. It’s quite likely that, given the chance, they would likewise force the world to trade in rubles—or whatever other kind of fantasy money they can cook up.
    The most effective way to transform earthly gold into cosmic gold is to put it into a high-speed vortex device. The faster a vortex spins, the colder the center becomes, defying the way substances usually behave because typically the faster something moves, the warmer it becomes. This high-speed vortex is created by the chestahedron shape of the heart as described by Frank Chester. Is it possible, then, that the heart of gold refers to its unique ability to carry out this transformation of an earthly element into cosmic gold, thereby providing the basis for life to exist?