For new readers: HERE are links to download my CV, ebooks, the best recent posts, and how to search my archives. HERE are links to OSR, DMSO, and chlorine dioxide products, contact information for experienced provider Kerri Rivera, and information on how to buy drugs from foreign and domestic pharmacies. Please review Judas Dentistry; the direct link is HERE. I need your help because a passel of mercury-intoxicated dentists are giving me one-star reviews. Finally, if you have a good story or are an expert who wants to be interviewed, please contact me at RobertYohoAuthor@gmail.com.
Joe is a great friend of mine. He is the smartest guy in any room, and we speak several times weekly. He has tutored me on many aspects of natural medicine.
He has had three heart attacks and is short of breath when walking, His cardiac ejection fraction is only 25 percent (50 to 70 percent is normal). He also has lupus and, until recently, had brittle, type 1 diabetes with blood sugars in the 400s (spoiler: he cured it using chlorine dioxide). He continues to work.
I cannot advise him, but I can tell him what I would do if I were him.
The huge treatment failures
The following two procedures are multibillion-dollar industries. Even though their success is modest and confined to narrow circumstances, they are employed promiscuously.
From Butchered by “Healthcare” (2020):
1. Coronary artery bypass (CABG) surgery
CABG surgery is proven to lengthen life only for the tiny fraction of patients who have severe left main coronary artery blockage. This one-centimeter vessel feeds two of the three primary heart arteries. It divides into a Y, supplying their inflow, and then the blood passes through these into most of the heart. Significant obstruction in this tiny spot is found in only three (3) percent of all heart attacks.
After a CABG plumbing job around this small section, eighty-five percent of patients will be alive five years later, but only 65 percent of them will survive five years if they just take medications. This twenty (20) percent improvement in survival at five years for this small group is the entire benefit—for all CABG surgeries. Sewing artery bypasses around other areas of artery obstructions does not improve lifespan.
The whole multibillion-dollar coronary artery bypass surgery skyscraper was built on this slender foundation. No studies have ever shown other justifications. As early as 1989, a Veterans Administration trial found that cardiac bypass surgery did not improve overall five-year survival more than merely taking medications. Fewer people died of heart disease when they got the operations, but they did not live longer on average because they died of other things—including presumably the operation itself.
The heart surgery machine has enormous, teetering wings with no foundation at all. These include the claim that doing a complicated surgery to bypass blockages in all three coronaries works as effectively as bypassing the left main artery alone. Although operating on this “left main equivalent” situation seems reasonable, studies have proven that triple vessel surgery does not extend life.
The gorillas in the CABG room are the complications. Two to nine percent of the people getting the surgery die immediately, and about a third—some studies say half—of those surviving have significant, measurable brain damage. Angioplasty, in contrast, has few such issues, and the fatalities are only a fraction of a percent when performed for patients who are not having a heart attack. The cardiologists tout it as the safe way to treat CAD (David Newman’s 2014 review of CABG in theNNT.com is a balanced commentary from when the literature was already mature. He cites two dozen key references.
Yoho: One of my friends just had a CABG surgical bypass procedure done by the best cardiac surgeon in California. His wife was told that the surgery would be completed in two and a half hours. It took over ten hours, and people who are on the heart-lung machine that long usually have brain damage.
2. Stents and angioplasty
The studies that debunked angioplasty and stents were as unforeseen and staggering as the ones that deflated CABG surgery. In 2007, the NEJM published the “COURAGE” trial of over 2000 patients (study authors like acronyms; this one somehow stands for “Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation”). It showed that neither stents nor angioplasty improved survival or subsequent heart attack rates in patients with stable coronary artery disease.
A follow-up report by these COURAGE authors showed improvements in angina and a few quality-of-life measures, but these effects lasted less than 36 months. Based on this slender support, the operations continued. The cardiologists thought it was reasonable because stent deaths are so rare.
Finally, the ORBITA study showed conclusively that these procedures were without survival benefit for stable cardiac disease—in people who were not having a heart attack. Neither pain nor chances of further heart attacks decreased either. This trial used an invasive “sham” or faked procedure for the control group, which is the most definitive type of surgical evaluation. There were only 230 patients, but the results were indisputable. (TheNNT.com has an excellent summary.)
Drug “eluting” stents leak drugs into the surrounding area, but they did not help patient survival either and cause an increase in blood clots. The science was clear: stents and angioplasty in routine care do not improve outcomes.
In 2019, a federally funded trial again discredited over 90 percent, possibly over 95 percent, of cardiology and cardiac surgical invasive procedures. The researchers treated 5,000 patients with stable heart disease with either CABG or stents. Neither therapy improved lifespan or heart attacks compared to diet and drugs. These patients were not having heart attacks at the time of the interventions. The researchers also excluded those with left main coronary artery disease.
Just as for CABG surgery, there is one narrow case where stents supposedly work. This is during a severe heart attack when the EKG has a pattern called “ST-elevation myocardial infarction” or STEMI. This is a complete or near-complete coronary artery blockage. When stents are placed during STEMIs, the cardiologists proclaim they save one person in 40, a number needed to treat of 40.
The American Heart Association and many others worldwide market this as “intervening during the golden hour” (lately, they have been promoting this more for strokes). Patients in their most vulnerable state, often in severe pain, get rushed from the emergency department to the catheterization lab and treated with angioplasty and stents. They are incapable of making reasoned decisions. Nortin Hadler summarizes: “Stenting belongs to one of the bleakest chapters in the history of Western medicine… Cardiologists are marching on because the interventional cardiology industry has a cash flow comparable to the GDP of many countries.”
The latest marketing ploy is to remind the public about “atypical” pain, which is serious but unlike the usual, distinctive heart attack pain patterns. People are now racing to the hospital, into this dysfunctional system, if they have any twinge in their chest.
Angioplasty causes strokes, heart attacks, rhythm disturbances, and bleeding. Does angioplasty save more STEMI heart attack patients than are killed by the procedure? When performed during a heart attack:
ANGIOPLASTY SAVES: 1/40, or 2.5%
ANGIOPLASTY FATALITIES: 1/167 to 1/43: .6% to 2.3%
ANGIOPLASTY COMPLICATIONS: 1/50, or 2%
Does the 1/40 “saved” figure already take into account the people who die from the procedure? Given the entire picture, I do not think it makes any difference, but if you still have doubts, ask your cardiologist. I doubt if they could convince me.
If we could forget the cardiologists’ conflict of interest and believe their numbers, the expense of doing angioplasties on 40 people to save one is 40 x the $35,000 cost, $1.4 million. This is on the outer fringes of acceptability; one to two million dollars spent for each life saved has somehow entered the literature as reasonable. Since heart attack patients have an average age in their late 60s, the number of years of life being bought is uncertain. And there are many other ways to spend this money that would do more good and save more years of life.
In the US, at least 85 percent (the lowest figure I could find) of coronary angioplasties are performed on patients who have uncomplicated, stable chest pain, where there is no chance of success. And STEMIs are likely only a percent or two of all heart attacks.
To justify the process, cardiologists often send their patients through the emergency room, claiming that they have “unstable angina.” This means chest pain occurring without physical exertion, not relieved by resting or medication, which may be worsening. This diagnosis gets abused since it is a judgment call with an imprecise definition. I spoke to emergency physicians in 2019, who confirmed they saw this scenario frequently.
Note: when angioplasty is done like this as an “elective procedure,” for no patient benefit, and not during a heart attack, it thankfully only kills .2 percent or 1/500.
Yoho comment 2024: You can look at numbers all day, but sometimes, a decision about a therapy boils down to risk-reward. Unlike CABG, which has a fatality rate in the mid-single percentages, angioplasty and stents have little risk. If you are in trouble, you may elect to have a stent despite the questionable advantages.
Proven successes
1. Protect your heart with estrogen.
(From Hormone Secrets.)
My doctor told me I should stop my hormones. Another doctor said that the patch was the only safe estrogen. These ideas are nearly always wrong, but you must be a “doctor whisperer” to understand why. Estrogen improves health more than any other hormone. Many of the beneficial effects of testosterone are because of its natural transformation into estrogen. These hormones are essential for everyone.
Patients may take natural estradiol in several ways, and there are advantages and disadvantages of each method:
Patches deliver the drug through the skin and relieve menopausal symptoms. They are touted as safe because, unlike (oral) Premarin, they do not cause blood clots (deep vein thromboses, or DVT). Oral estradiol does not cause clotting either, but many doctors refuse to prescribe it because they think that all estrogens taken by mouth might cause blood clots, just like Premarin does.
Another health issue is at stake. Both oral estrogens, estradiol and premarin, protect against heart attacks by decreasing cholesterol buildup inside the coronary arteries. In contrast, transdermal estrogen—patches and creams—do not safeguard the heart like pills do.
The WHI study showed another tiny risk for one group of women taking Premarin. Those who were older than 65 had a slight increase in their heart disease risk—but only during the first year they took the drug. Every year after that, their chances of cardiac problems were lower than the group using no hormones. So Premarin's overall heart benefits were far greater than the hazards.
Confusions about this science have herded doctors into prescribing the industry’s profitable patches. Anti-aging groups have joined in and used these stories to promote their hormone creams. Like the patch, these have little risk, but unfortunately, they have no health benefits except symptom relief.
Since heart disease causes over half of all deaths, any drug that decreases this is indispensable. Women in the WHI who took Premarin for five years had forty percent fewer heart attack fatalities than those who took no medications. Subsequent studies using estradiol showed even higher benefits. Effects like these dwarf the risks.
Physicians live in a world of peer pressure, medical boards, and malpractice lawsuits. Calculations of risk versus reward are not always their focus or even a top priority. Most of them have heard something about the WHI study and fear getting blamed. So, the following “standard of care” developed:
1) For older women or anyone with cardiac risk factors, some physicians prescribe only transdermal estrogen or even refuse to consider hormone replacement. These patients include the obese and those with a history of smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, or a family history of heart disease—the people who need heart protection the most.
2) Women who are ten years or more after menopause are thought to benefit from hormones less and have higher risks. So they are also often only given the patch or even advised to stop estrogens altogether.
If estrogen is given through the skin—or worse, no replacement is prescribed—doctors do no harm. The outrage is that we do no good. Heart protection is far more critical for frail, older patients than healthy, younger people.
2. Protect your heart with testosterone.
Dr. Abraham Morgentaler’s published work on testosterone surpasses anyone else’s. It has appeared in mainstream journals, and he has also written books for the public. One of his articles HERE shows how testosterone decreases cardiac risks.
Other articles showing that heart disease risks decline are HERE and HERE.
This is a patient story from Hormone Secrets:
Robert is a 58-year-old attorney. I went to my doctor to have a hernia repaired. He sent me for an exercise test, which was positive. I then had a coronary angiogram that showed blockages of my heart arteries. The docs wanted to do stents and maybe heart surgery before my hernia surgery, but I said no way; I felt fine. So I saw a doctor. After a year on hormones, including HGH, I returned to that cardiologist, and my arteries were clear. They let me have my hernia surgery, but none of the docs believed the treatment cured my coronary arteries.
Hormone Secrets also tells why you should also take progesterone and human growth hormone (the latter if you can afford it).
3. EDTA chelation helps coronary heart disease (CHD).
(From a web search.)
The National Institutes of Health sponsored two large-scale trials to evaluate the efficacy of EDTA chelation therapy for CHD. The first, Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT), provided compelling evidence supporting EDTA chelation. The study included 1,708 participants aged 50 and older with a history of heart attacks. Participants receiving EDTA chelation showed an 18% reduced risk of subsequent cardiac events, including heart attacks, strokes, and hospitalizations for angina. The treatment effect persisted throughout the 5-year follow-up period.
EDTA chelation therapy is believed to work by binding to and removing heavy metals and calcium from the bloodstream. This may help reduce arterial plaque buildup and improve cardiovascular function.
A typical EDTA chelation therapy regimen for CHD involves:
20 to 40 weekly infusions, each lasting several hours
High-dose vitamin and mineral supplements
The TACT study revealed promising results for diabetic patients, who showed an even more significant reduction in cardiac events. No major adverse events were reported, and the minor side effects, such as headaches and fatigue, typically lasted 24 hours.
While EDTA chelation therapy for CHD has not yet received FDA approval, the positive results from TACT and ongoing research have sparked increased interest in this treatment modality. The follow-up TACT study is underway, focusing specifically on diabetic patients with a history of heart attacks.
Yoho comment: Physician reports confirm that this works. The angiograms sometimes do not improve much, but symptoms do. If it were me, I would ask my chelator to give me 25 to 50 grams of vitamin C, a few grams of magnesium, and glutathione, all IV, every time I saw him. If I couldn’t afford this, I would take these orally.
4. Only an idiot would dismiss chlorine dioxide.
If you missed my posts about that, start with the links in the top paragraph. Here is a patient story to whet your interest:
A physician explains how chlorine dioxide cured his coronary disease (from Andreas Kalcker’s Forbidden Health).
I use an aerosol containing 25% CDS [chlorine dioxide solution] and 75% water. I then place ten pushes of the aerosol under my tongue, wait 30 seconds, and swallow what is left.
I had a total blockage of a coronary artery, and when the doctors performed catheterization on me, they could not place the stent because the obstruction was total. They recommended an open heart bypass for $21,000 and $4,000 for catheterization. I had cardiocerebral ischemia; I stuttered and couldn't move my arms. Nine cardiologists saw me, plus all the exams and seven treatments, and then I was evicted from the hospital.
I could not walk 50 meters or speak or breathe well. I started with the CDS sublingual spray technique and launched it to the world after one year of using it with amazing results.
Today, I breathe normally, can walk 5 kilometers, bike 20 kilometers, and have a blood pressure of 120/80. My resting heart rate is between 62 and 65 bpm.
I just turned 64, I take only one pill, and I apply the CDS SPRAY 7 to 8 times a day sublingually. I share it with you so that many people who are confined to their homes and cannot do anything, not even have sex, can change their lives for the better. I had everything taken from me, and I just had to wait with crossed arms for God to take me. You and those who read this testimony now have this blessing from God. Please let us evaluate all the treatments used and see which have worked and which have done harm. May God take care of us.
Things that help and cost almost nothing.
1. Melatonin
(From a web search.)
Melatonin can significantly decrease pro-inflammatory markers in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. These play a role in the development and progression of atherosclerosis.
Melatonin has also demonstrated the ability to influence blood pressure, particularly in patients with abnormal circadian blood pressure patterns. Coronary artery disease (CAD) patients do not experience the normal nighttime drop in blood pressure. A study found that 5 mg of melatonin before sleep improved their circadian blood pressure profile. Hypertension is a major risk factor for CAD.
Research suggests that melatonin may improve endothelial function, which is impaired in CAD patients. Melatonin has also been shown to increase nitric oxide bioavailability, a crucial factor in maintaining healthy blood vessel function. This could slow the progression of atherosclerosis and reduce the risk of cardiac events. Several studies have reported lower levels of endogenous melatonin in patients with CAD than in healthy individuals. This could potentially contribute to the development and progression of the disease, suggesting that melatonin supplementation might be particularly beneficial for these patients.
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that melatonin administration as a cardioprotective agent attenuated heart dysfunction and had a favorable effect on left ventricular ejection fraction.
Yoho comment: People over 45 do not produce much melatonin, and supplementation improves their health. It has many other positive effects besides the above that I will cover soon. The usual high dose starts at 180 mg nightly. I use the powder and take up to four grams.
2. Cardiovascular Benefits of DMSO
(From a web search.)
DMSO has been reported to inhibit vascular smooth muscle cell migration and proliferation, which are key factors in the development of atherosclerosis.2 Additionally, DMSO has shown the ability to reduce intracranial pressure and tissue edema, which may be beneficial in severe cardiovascular events. 2
During acute myocardial infarctions, DMSO has been shown to suppress cytotoxicity from excess glutamate release and restrict cytotoxic Na+ and Ca2+ entry into damaged cells.2 These effects could help limit the extent of damage during a heart attack. One study demonstrated that DMSO at a concentration of 0.5% (6.3 mM) strongly inhibits shear stress-induced adherence in human platelets.6 This antiplatelet effect could be beneficial in preventing thrombosis, a common complication in coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction.
The cardiovascular benefits of DMSO may have several mechanisms:
Anti-inflammatory effects
Antioxidant properties
Improved blood flow
Inhibition of platelet activation
Reduction of tissue factor expression
Yoho comment: Most studies have been conducted in vitro or on animal models, so they are not definitive. However, DMSO is so cheap and safe that it deserves consideration for coronary disease. I take a tablespoonful in orange juice daily and take a few days off from it every month.
3. Oral vitamin C
(From a web search.)
Vitamin C is a powerful antioxidant that can boost blood antioxidant levels by up to 30%.4 This helps fight inflammation and oxidative stress, key factors in developing heart disease.1
A meta-analysis of 29 trials showed that daily supplementation of 60 to 4000 mg of vitamin C (median 500 mg) in hypertensive participants reduced systolic BP by 3.84 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 1.48 mm Hg.2
It enhances nitric oxide bioactivity and improves endothelial function of brachial and coronary arteries.3
Vitamin C supplementation can reduce monocyte adhesion to the endothelial cell wall, potentially slowing the progression of atherosclerosis.3
An analysis of 13 studies found that taking at least 500 mg of vitamin C daily significantly reduced LDL (bad) cholesterol by approximately 7.9 mg/dL and blood triglycerides by 20.1 mg/dL4. An analysis of 9 studies with 293,172 participants found that after 10 years, people who took at least 700 mg of vitamin C daily had a 25% lower risk of heart disease than those who did not take it.4
Cancer, another inflammatory disease, is effectively treated with C. Linus Pauling and Abe Hoffer found that 100 stage 4 cancer patients who took vitamin C to bowel tolerance (to the point of diarrhea) lived at least 12 times longer than 1000 controls who took no vitamin C (A Hoffer & L Pauling, Orthomolecular Medicine 5:143-154, 1990).
How to do it: Mix ascorbic acid (C) in water and take several grams every half hour until loose stools occur. If you are vitamin C-depleted, this might take all day the first time. Consider adding some liposomal C in one or two-gram capsules. These do not cause diarrhea. IV vitamin C in 25 to 100-gram doses is an alternative, but Thomas Levy, MD, thinks this is less effective than oral liposomal C.
4. Other fundamental practices I would implement if it were me
Strictly avoid polyunsaturated seed oils and instead consume saturated animal fat. Animal proteins are the most healthy, and beef is superior to chicken because our chickens are fed seed oils and equally unhealthy soy. Cows have several stomachs, and they can inactivate these poisons. Avoid large predator fish like tuna because they are filled with mercury. To accomplish all this, you must ghost your favorite restaurants.
Calm down and abandon your manic lifestyle until you have the problem under control.
If you have ever had angina, carry nitroglycerine and use long-acting nitrates like Nitro-Bid oral or topical.
Follow your cardiologist's other medicine recommendations, such as beta-blockers. ACE inhibitors are generally harmless if they do not make you cough. If I were still practicing, I would give most people some leeway in using diuretics such as Lasix or Bumex. The goal is to be comfortable and not gain much water weight or have too much swelling, yet maintain a reasonable blood pressure. Many also benefit from switching away from their generics, such as metoprolol and amlodipine, for brand names (Toprol XL and Norvasc for these). This is all artwork, and your cardiologist should be an artist.
A mountain of evidence supports taking a full aspirin a day and putting up with any bruising.
Never take statins, which are a net harm (See A Statin Nation among many other references). Do not shove this in your cardiologist’s face; always remain respectful, or he can not help you.
My final comment for Joe
You told me yesterday that your cardiac rehabilitation exercise program charged your Medicare/Anthem insurance $3500 for each hour in their gym. In return, they instructed you how to lift weights and took your blood pressure twice a session. They failed to recognize that you were too unstable for vigorous exercise.
This tells me that the quality of care in your rural area stinks. These people are frauds, and their behavior reflects on the referring cardiologist. Although our entire national healthcare system has turned to rent-seeking, this is one of the most egregious examples I have seen.* Because of your health instability, you cannot get wrapped up in a conflict now, but if I were you, I would consider ratting them out later.
*After a moment’s thought, I realized these rehab people are amateur thieves compared to psychiatrists, oncologists, invasive cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and many other medical specialties. At least they are not aggressively damaging their patients like dentists and pediatricians.
After Joe read this, he asked, “Are you angry with me?” I said, “No, I’m angry that you are getting such crappy care.”
Joe’s reactions:
I appreciate your ideas and am already following most of them. I am scheduled to see a hormone specialist, but no EDTA chelators are close. I have ordered some melatonin powder and DMSO. I also use stem cell activators from Biolight Technologies and take nitric oxide capsules from Nathan Bryant, PhD.
I have a hyperbaric chamber and a Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMF) machine. This FDA-approved device sends a low-intensity pulsed electromagnetic field into the body. It increases microcirculation and blood flow, reduces stress, and promotes relaxation and well-being.
My good news came today. My cardiologist wanted to insert an elective stent. I knew the numbers did not support this unless I was having a heart attack, but I told him to go ahead because the risks were low. When he did the angiogram to see where to put it, my obstructions were gone, so he had nothing to treat. The PEMF machine must be working. Yoho: No, it was the chlorine dioxide—do not forget that a few months ago, it also cured or nearly cured your longstanding type 1 diabetes.
Joe is surviving by his wits alone.
Disclaimer
These days, I am just a journalist with a unique background and a few special skills. I do not have a license to practice medicine or experience using holistic treatments for patients. None of my ideas are specific treatment suggestions for Joe or you. You must decide what to do with the help of your doctors—if you can find any you trust.
Share this post