September 6, 2000

What If The Primary Test For Heart Disease Caused Heart Disease?

The Enemies Of Health

Would it worry you to know that the doctor who is supposed to save your life is killing you?

They tell you that you may have heart disease, and that you should have a test!  You think the doctor knows best, so you agree.  They give you an "angiogram," and increase the chances that you will have a heart attack!  That is the direction of much of modern medicine today.  This article reveals the truth about dangerous diagnostic technology -- and gives you the less expensive, more accurate, and safer alternative -- the one your doctor won't tell you about!

This article can save your life!

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you didn't have to guess about the condition of your arteries?  Your heart?

Man has ever been interested in what goes on inside the body.  Thousands of years ago a Greek doctor, by the name of Galen, "announced" that there were two types of blood, one made by the liver and the other by the heart.

Click Here To Read This Article On The Karl Loren Web

Can I rely on Ultrasound To Diagnose Heart Disease?

by Karl Loren

Ultrasound & Heart Disease

The Greek View Of Blood Flow

Galen, a Greek physician who lived in the second century AD., spent his lifetime in observation of the human body and its functioning. Galen believed and taught his students that there were two distinct types of blood. 'Nutritive blood' was thought to be made by the liver and carried through veins to the organs, where it was consumed. 'Vital blood' was thought to be made by the heart and pumped through arteries to carry the "vital spirits." Galen believed that the heart acted not to pump blood, but to suck it in from the veins. Galen also believed that blood flowed through the septum of the heart from one ventricle to the other through a system of tiny pores. He did not know that the blood left each ventricle through arteries.  [Source]

Galen's view of blood was wrong, but it was the only "science" Western man had for more than a thousand years.  Galen based much of his research and conclusions on dissection.  But, soon after his time, dissection was considered a sin.  So, Galen observed wrongly, based on techniques (dissection) that might have been appropriate, and then with these wrong observations announced his theories of blood flow as "law."  Then, dissection as a technique was announced a sin!  Click here for a more philosophical explanation of Galen's findings.  Click here to review a summary page on the history of internal examination.  The history of modern diagnostic concepts -- click here.

Galen (a non-Christian) was able to dissect human bodies (and some living ones) because there were many Christians being killed in the Roman arenas in those years.  Probably as a back-lash to this, the Church, for many hundreds of years after they got in power considered dissection a sin.  (The Church also had the problem that they consider that "man" was a "meat animal" and therefore "cutting into the body" was a sin from this viewpoint.)   While "dissection" is still recognized as a valuable tool of research, "vivisection" has been called the most barbaric act of mankind.

You can see how this would close off scientific discovery!

How Would You Like Dead Cats Thrown On Your Porch?

Then, a thousand years later, another doctor came along, Dr. Harvey, living in England.  He lived at a time when it was still considered VERY improper to use dissection to explore the inside of a body.  He did it, nonetheless, and realized from his examination of the "little tubes" he found (arteries), and the heart, that there was just no way that the blood could flow back and forth, under the influence of the moon, or any other foolish notion, including that "law" of Dr. Galen.

While acting as court physician, Harvey was able to conduct his research in human biology and physiology. Harvey focused much of his research on the mechanics of blood flow in the human body. Most physicians of the time felt that the lungs were responsible for moving the blood around throughout the body. Harvey questioned these beliefs and his questions directed his life-long scientific investigations. [Source]

This notion of blood flow from the past was, he said, crazy.

But, he was ahead of his time.  He was ostracized.  People threw dead cats (the product and evidence of dissection) on his doorstep.

The famous quote at the time was, "I would rather be wrong with Galen than right with Harvey." [painting]  Also, click here to see a painting from about 1300, showing the religious prohibition to dissection.

And so "science" continued to suffer from blindness and stupidity.

"Science" is a little better off today, but even today scientists are still trying to look inside the body and figure out what is happening.  The drug industry has taken over from the Church in establishing the politically correct methods of medical research.

For instance, there are still millions of doctors and scientists who believe that "chelation" is not a valid therapy, and that you cannot improve blood flow except through surgery or drugs.  If chelation were widely accepted, there would be, literally, many billions of dollars lost to the drugs and surgeons that are getting it now.

I Can See Through Your Bones!

But, as man has continued his search for understanding the inside of the body, he has come up with new methods of "looking."

The X-Ray was one of the earliest of truly modern devices to look inside the body.

Those who are now in their 60's will remember, well, the X-Ray machine in their shoe store

Those who are in their 60's will remember, well, the X-Ray machine in their shoe store.  Click here for a quick historical review.  I recall how much fun it was to buy new shoes.  I got a chance to see my bones and to wiggle my feet and see the bones move.  I never had any idea that, maybe, these "X-Rays" were harmful!

The picture on the left, above, was one of the very first X-Ray Photos -- taken in 1896.

X-Rays were actually discovered in 1895, and almost immediately used for looking inside a body:

Roentgen published his first article on the phenomenon in late December 1895. By February of 1896 American physicists were using X rays in clinical medicine. [Source]

Their use for more complex physics and chemistry applications came later -- about 1913.

The history of X-ray fluorescence dates back to the accidental discovery of X-rays in 1895 by the German physicist Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen. While studying cathode rays in a high-voltage, gaseous-discharge tube, Roentgen observed that even though the experimental tube was encased in a black cardboard box the barium-platinocyanide screen, which was lying adjacent to the experiment, emitted fluorescent light whenever the tube was in operation. Roentgen's discovery of X-rays and their possible use in analytical chemistry went unnoticed until 1913 [even though used much earlier for medical diagnosis].   [Source]

Click here, or here for more of the history of X-Rays.

Man's thirst for some method of looking inside the body seemed to be satisfied, and no one was looking for any danger connected with X-Rays.  X-Rays, of course, cause cancer and other problems.  This was known almost immediately, but since there was nothing else available, the dangers were ignored.  That willingness to ignore the dangers of various diagnostic tools has been a common denominator of medical "science" for many decades!

Clarence Dally (1865-1904), assistant to industrialist Thomas Alva Edison. The first recognized American X ray fatality.

Soon after the discovery of X rays in 1895, both men repeatedly exposed themselves to x rays in popular demonstrations and investigations of the exotic new imaging technology. Mr. Dally tested his X ray equipment on his own hands.  [Source]

Mr. Dally died -- horribly!  Edison knew what killed him and would never go close to an X-Ray again -- but the deadly device was now in great use by those who didn't know and didn't care!

It's Just As Deadly, But We'll Call It A Different Name!

You can guess that X-Rays would not be outlawed until some new tool came along.  But, instead the X-Ray has just been "refined" supposedly to reduce the dangers, and the fact that some testing procedure uses X-Rays is often hidden from the patient.  The CAT Scan, for instance, is nothing more than a huge X-Ray machine, but you may not have heard that part of the story.

One very well known piece of technology is the "angiogram" -- the "picture" of the "heart."  The angiogram uses X-Rays also, but it is even more dangerous than just the X-Rays.  Since an X-Ray can't "see" the soft tissues of the arteries and heart very well, the angiogram includes the pumping of a dye into the arteries -- a dye which shows up on the X-Ray photo.  So, angiograms start off being dangerous X-Ray procedures, coupled with an invasive insertion of a tube into your body -- to sneak up close to the heart where it then releases the dye that can be detected by the X-Ray.

The angiogram is a dangerous and expensive procedure.  It has its own statistical rate of death, and although many thousands of these are done every year, few if any of the people who get them realize that they can't get them without signing a consent form that allows the doctors, in the middle of the angiogram process, to halt the process and revert, immediately, to a bypass surgery.

The angiogram first came onto the scene in the late 1950's.  Click for that history.

Click here to read exactly how an angiogram is performed.

Angiograms are subject to a great deal of human error when it comes to interpreting the status of an artery.  Click here to read about the terrible mistakes made by the doctors who read these angiograms.  Here is a summary of the scientific study found at the end of that link:

Background: Evidence from numerous studies of coronary angiography show differences between observers' assessments of 15% to 45%. The implication of this variation is serious: If readings are erroneous, some patients will undergo revascularization procedures [bypass] unnecessarily and others will be denied an essential treatment. We evaluated the variation in interpretation of angiograms and its potential effect on appropriateness of use of revascularization procedures.

Methods and Results: Angiograms of 308 randomly selected patients previously studied for appropriateness of angiography, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) were interpreted by a blinded panel of 3 experienced angiographers and compared with the original interpretations. The potential effect on differences on the appropriateness of revascularization was assessed by use of the RAND criteria. Technical deficiencies were found in 52% of cases. Panel readings tended to show less significant disease (none in 16% of vessels previously read as showing significant disease), less severity of stenosis (43% lower, 6% higher), and lower extent of disease (23% less, 6% more). The classification of CABG changed from necessary/appropriate to uncertain/inappropriate for 17% to 33% of cases when individual ratings were replaced by panel readings.

Conclusions: The general level of technical quality of coronary angiography is unsatisfactory. Variation in the interpretation of angiograms was substantial in all measures and tended to be higher in individual than in panel readings. The effect was to lead to a potential overestimation of appropriateness of use of CABG by 17% and of PTCA by 10%. These findings indicate the need for increased attention to the technical quality of studies and an independent second reading for angiograms before recommending revascularization.

The angiogram has come under a great deal of criticism for many reasons:

• First, it is relatively expensive, usually above $5,000

• The fact that is usually covered by insurance is actually another negative sign, since the best techniques are seldom ever covered by insurance.

• It carries its own risk of death

• It carries the risk of triggering a heart attack while it is going on

• The risk of heart attack is SO great that a person cannot normally receive an angiogram without ALSO signing a consent form that if "anything goes wrong," he authorizes the doctor to IMMEDIATELY switch over to bypass surgery

• Finally, it takes great skill to interpret the results and as many as half of the diagnosis from an angiogram are wrong, with considerable danger to the patient.

So, looking into the body with an angiogram is not a very happy prospect.  The patient may die from the procedure!  It costs something like $5,000!  And, as soon as you agree to have an angiogram you have to also sign a consent form that, if anything goes wrong, you have already approved a bypass surgery procedure (for another $50,000)!

If You Don't Like X-Rays, They've Got A Different Way!

But man, in his never-ending quest for knowledge, always blocked by "science" that already has the answer, pushes and shoves, and in fits and starts, comes up with always-better technology of exploring the universe of the inside.

The next tool to come along tried to avoid the dangers of X-Rays by replacing them with powerful magnetic waves, MRI, magnetic resonance imaging:

The first clinical use of MRI took place in Nottingham University Hospital in England in 1967. Since then it's importance in radiology continue to grow at a tremendous space and is now established beyond doubt.  [Source]

Here is a good description of the MRI:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a method for taking pictures of the inside of your body without radiation. MRI images are made by placing the body in a strong magnetic field.  [Source]

The MRI device is very similar in overall appearance to the CAT Scan machine.

Here Is Another Name To Hide The X-Rays!

The next tool to come along was yet another refinement of the use of X-Ray -- The CAT Scan.

Computerized Axial Tomographic Scanning or CAT Scanning is an imaging technology that is used in both the medical field and different areas of research.  CAT scanners were first introduced in 1973.  Further improvements have been made in CAT technology yielding quicker scanning time and better images of objects such as density of organs and bones.  [Source]

The "CAT Scan" is described below.  This is a huge machine that you are actually placed inside of -- your body is placed on a moving table -- the table enters the CAT Scan machine for the process.

The Cat SCAN machine was invented by Hounsfield, and is basically an x-ray tube that rotates in a circle around the patient making many pictures as it rotates. The multiple x-ray pictures are reconstructed by a computer in axial slice images sort of like the way a loaf of bread is sliced. Each slice of bread can be examined separately.  [Source]

One of the inherent weaknesses of the CAT Scan is that you can't get good pictures of things that are moving inside the body -- it's fine for bones and non-moving parts, including non-moving "tissue," but it isn't "fast enough" to capture the beating of the heart.  It is also, obviously, very expensive and complicated to operate.

The CAT Scan, of course, exposes the body to X-Rays!  Enough said!

Here is a picture of a person being moved inside of a CAT Scan Device.

These two last machines, the CAT Scan and the MRI, cost millions of dollars to buy and cost patients and insurance companies many thousands of dollars for diagnoses that are, essentially, often a waste of money and health.  There is something far better, far cheaper, and deliberately discounted just because it is NOT tightly controlled by the arrogant doctors.

The world needs to understand the dangers and inadequacies of these diagnostic tools.

We all know that about half of all death is caused by heart disease, but you can always figure that you are in the "safe half."  Neither X-Ray, CAT-Scan nor MRI gives a very good internal picture of heart disease!  

There are other diagnostic tools, including the PET (more X-Rays) and mammogram (more X-Rays), but I'll leave those because they are not much different from those already covered.

The New Dawn Has Arrived!

We hear about this and that remedy and treatment, but wouldn't it be great to have a simple test that would prove whether or not some treatment is actually working?  Whether or not you really needed it.  And, what if that test were absolutely safe????

How could you "look" into the arteries and find out whether they are blocked or not?

The bats that fly through the night have the technology -- and have had it for millions of years!  Click here to read how bats "see" at night.

The bat, as most people know, "sees" with sound.  He sends out a "sound wave."  It hits various objects and bounces back.  He receives these returning sound waves and has developed, over the millions of years, the ability to detect flying insects as different from pebbles, etc.  This is sometimes referred to as the "Doppler" effect, after Mr. Doppler who demonstrated it more than 100 years ago.  The marriage between "Doppler" technology and "ultrasound" is well explained here.

If a bat, flying at a rather high rate of speed, can "see" a housefly, also flying along, and swoop down to eat it, don't you think science would like to duplicate that ability.  Well, of course, they did.  It was NASA, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, many years ago, that financed research into this technology, and came up with a great deal of useful information that has now been transformed into many commercial applications.  Click here to read about NASA's research in this area.

Ultrasound To The Rescue!

This technology has had a few different names -- "ultrasound," and "sonograms" are two of those.

You may know of "sonograms" as the very common method now used by pregnant women to find out what sex their unborn child is.  In fact this is such a fad that many parents will even "publish" the "pictures" of their unborn child on the web for the world to see.  Click here, for instance, to see a typical sonogram picture -- in this case of a fetus shown sucking its thumb.

When you look at this picture of the fetus you might think that it is fuzzy and not very "accurate," but the wonderful world of science can turn the sound wave, when it returns to the transmitting device, into a digital picture and greatly improve the quality of the picture.  And, when people are trained on what to look for they can see, instantly, details in these pictures that you might not, yourself, recognize.

Echocardiography: Echocardiography is similar in technique to sonar, which is used at sea to determine depth and location of underwater objects. Pulses of sound can be transmitted into the chest by means of small device placed on the skin. (This is harmless, high frequency "ultrasound" which cannot be heard by human ears.) The different echoes returning from the surfaces of the heart and other structures are then electronically plotted and recorded. These signals create an echocardiogram, a graphic image of the heart and blood vessels. This can yield useful information about these structures, such as the size, shape and motion of the heart chambers and great vessels and the motion of the heart valves.  (Source)

 Click here for a summary page on ultrasound devices and technology.

That's about it for now -- a quick study of several different ways to look inside the body.  Now, I'd like to take you "deeper" into the subject of the "gold standard" of testing for heart disease -- that is the "angiogram."

The most common test for heart disease is the angiogram and I want to compare that test with ultrasound in terms of risk, cost and accuracy.  In fact this article includes a full set of 100 scientific studies that compare the angiogram with ultrasound.   Click here for the summary page on angiograms.

I think "ultrasound" is the test that the world needs, and I'd like to tell you more about it.  As often is the case, there is a villain in this story.  But, surprisingly, it is not that ultrasound is considered worthless by the medical establishment.  On the contrary, traditional doctors are using ultrasound with great fervor -- it's just that they have figured out how to use ultrasound in such a way that YOU can't get the best use of it.

So, first, many people, probably as many as 50%, have heart disease.  Most of these people are waiting for some dramatic event before they will take it seriously.  They eat too much, they don't do any exercise, they ignore small warning signals.  Then, unfortunately, often the first warning sign is that they have a heart attack and drop dead on the spot.  No warning!

If they could walk by a booth in a Country Fair and spend 10 minutes with a technician, and see, for themselves, on a video screen, their own heart beating and pumping blood?  Would that interest them?  Probably.

If you could watch the blood flow out of your heart and move along your arteries, would that be of interest?

I recently did just that!

If you could see some part of your arteries where the video picture are showing you in "real time" what is happening inside your body -- where this picture would show that some artery was virtually blocked and that no blood was getting through -- would that interest you?

If you learned about this problem, but your only alternative were to take some drug, or have open heart surgery, perhaps you would rather just not know?

But, what if there was some "magic pill" you could swallow, a pill that would make your blockage go away and your blood flow return to normal?

And, what it that magic pill could be tested, scientifically, by a before and after picture of your own arteries?  Would that be a very satisfying test of some treatment.

You would think that all medical drugs aimed at heart health would be tested with such a device, wouldn't you?  Why not?  Well, because the results of the "after" test would show that most conventional treatments DO NOT improve blood flow.  So, why publicize some simple test that is going to do nothing more than show up the fraud of the treatment?

You see now that most ultrasound devices are in the hands of doctors who don't want you to use them as I think you should!

How About Karl And Jean?

I, Karl Loren, and my wife, Jean Ross, learned about ultrasound from a guest lecturer in July, and decided that we would each get scheduled for a full and complete physical exam.

The cost was $800 total for both of us -- we each got two exams -- one for heart disease and one for cancer.

Now I, Karl, am 69 and have never had any tests to tell me if I had any heart problems.  I've also been taking my own oral chelation formula for more than 15 years.

Jean Ross has been smoking for more than 40 years.  But, she too has been taking our own oral chelation formula for more than 15 years.

We didn't know what to expect -- but we went for the ultrasound examination.

I was first -- the technician was amazed.  Here I was, at 69, and I had ZERO blockage in my arteries.  I also has not the slightest trace of cancer.  Furthermore, these tests included a test of the amount of blood flow into the feet -- and I had a very strong flow in that area.

Jean was very curious about her own test results.

The Big Zero!

Well, she also had ZERO blockage in her arteries, very strong blood flow in her feet and not the slightest trace of cancer.

So, it appears that the Life Glow Plus oral chelation formula has kept our arteries clear despite our diets and age.

I'm quite pleased with that.

This also means that we are quite free of toxic metals!  Click here for a summary page for all the many articles and studies about the dangers of toxic metals.  There are many more studies and articles here, about the dangers of radiation.  Altogether from the time I started this research near the end of July, to the time of publication of this article as the Wednesday Letter for September 2000, I compiled and wrote more than 2000 pages here!  This article, and all its many links, could keep you involved for many days -- and the whole world needs to learn this information.

So, we started talking about that when we answered phone calls, and wouldn't you know that one of our customers told us that she had been taking Life Glow Plus for two years.  Before she started on our oral chelation she had TWO different labs do ultrasound tests on her.  She showed up at 75% blockage in one large artery and 25% blockage in the other -- she was worried enough about these findings to actually go for a second ultrasound test at a different laboratory.

The second lab confirmed the same rates of blockage.

She then started taking our oral chelation formula.

She had not heard anything about US getting the ultrasound, but, on her own, she decided after two years that she would get these tests again.

She still had not heard about our own experience when her ultrasound tests showed her with ZERO blockage in both those arteries that had been blocked.

She then called, routinely, to order more Life Glow.   We shared our own happiness at our test results, and she was amazed -- she was delighted to report that she had similar success.

Now I'm urging you to get an Ultrasound test yourself -- the best way would be BEFORE you start using the oral chelation.  We don't know how long it might take to drop your blockage from 75% to Zero!, but it might take as long as a couple years.

As we come to the end of this article let me urge you to click here to view the specially designed Table of Contents -- to find links to the more than 2000 pages that actually have been published here -- to bring you the story about ultrasound.  Also, we now have TWO different search engines on every page -- search engines that look ONLY on Karl Loren's web pages.  Try using the new www.google.com  search feature below, or use the search engine at the top of every page.

There Is Another Test!

Your urine can tell you whether you are likely to have heart disease!

Remember that the modern concept of heart disease is that toxic metals in the body cause a great increase in the activity of free radicals -- and it is the free radicals that cause both heart disease and cancer.

If you test your urine you can sometimes detect the presence of toxic metals like lead.

But, amazingly, if you get a test of your urine BEFORE starting the oral chelation, you'll get a "base line" measurement of the amount of toxic metals.  Click here to browse over 66 different scientific studies on the subject of toxic metals in urine!  Click here for the summary page on all the articles and studies about urine tests on this web site.

Then, you start taking oral chelation and after about a week taking the oral chelation, you get another urine test.  These are relatively cheap tests, and of course they are not dangerous in any way.  On that second test you SHOULD see a large increase in the amount of toxic metal in the urine -- this proves that the chelation process is removing the toxic metals, and dumping it out in your urine.

That should convince you that it is working -- you could continue taking oral chelation as long as you continue to find those high levels of toxic metals in your urine.

If you get both an ultrasound test and a urine test before starting on Life Glow Plus, you will then have absolute scientific proof that this formula is working for you -- and then we'll get more of the world having these same successes as Jean and I have had.

How About Hair Analysis?

Hair analysis is often used, but many tests show that it is not anywhere near as accurate as tests of urine -- the ultrasound test would be the best.

The analysis of hair for nutritional assessment has a number of potential pitfalls, which include: (1) contamination by sweat, (2) environmental contamination, (3) influence of previous beauty treatments, (4) critical dependence upon location of the hair sample, (5) paradoxic values depending upon the rate of hair growth, and (6) lack of clear definition of a normal range. The results of measuring metal concentrations in hair even under ideal circumstances may not correlate with those obtained in blood and urine. Long-term exposure to heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury, can be readily identified by hair analysis. Little if any value is derived from a random examination of hair as the sole procedure for nutritional assessment. Nutritional recommendations should not be based on the results of hair analysis alone. [Source]

Cholesterol Screening!

I've left this as almost an afterthought!

While I described the angiogram as the primary testing method for heart disease, there IS the much more common test of measuring your cholesterol.  That is such a fraudulent set of lies that I wonder that it continues in existence.

Many years ago, when I realized that "high cholesterol" was an "invented disease" I finally decided to write an entire book to expose the lies.  You can read that entire book on the Web, by clicking here.

Suffice it to say that as a diagnostic measure the cholesterol screening is a complete sham.  "High cholesterol" was a disease invented for the purpose of selling drugs.

More and more scientific evidence is coming into public view -- about the effectiveness of the Life Glow formulas for improving blood flow.   Don't wait!

---

Harris poll: 98 million adults surf Internet for health-related information

August 18, 2000
Web posted at: 2:16 PM EDT (1816 GMT)
 

August 18, 2000
Web posted at: 2:16 PM EDT (1816 GMT)
 

August 18, 2000
Web posted at: 2:16 PM EDT (1816 GMT)
 

(AP) -- About 98 million adults use the Internet to find health-related information, according to a poll conducted by Harris Interactive.

The number of "cyberchondriacs," as Harris describes them, has grown from 54 million since 1998 and they now account for roughly 86 percent of all Internet users.

Of the 1,001 adults polled by Harris, 13 percent of respondents said they look "often" for health information, 40 percent said "sometimes" and 33 percent reported their use to be "hardly ever."

Harris said the survey was conducted by telephone and has a statistical precision of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

E-Mail Address: First Name: Last Name:

E-Mail Address: