coumadin , plaque, vit. k2, Cyclodextrin, stopping plaque

[pellicle]

Ok ... lets try sections then:

I've had time to have a flick through this list and as I expected I didn't find anything which is beyond exactly what I said at the beginning:
"There is at best a weak link of association in some cases"

I'm not really interested in going around and around with Pellicle on this one again. There will always be a hair to split, a minor phrasing to attach major importance to. Run a Google search on "Warfarin calcium progression" or "Warfarin CAC progression" or some such. You'll find a lot to read on the matter.

I do know that the "Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute" is trying to see if Rivaroxiban pushes the progression of vascular calcification less than Warfarin. There's probably a reason that they are looking into it:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02376010

yes, there probably is ...
research funding
a pharmaceutical company who makes a much bigger profit from that drug than warfarin
there is edge cases who will benefit (and we can charge more)
interestingly Noct is vocal about how Big Pharma charges too much and twists evidence when its about the drugs he's interested in.

but this is a statement of research, not an out come so sorry, this is not evidence.

Well well. Here's another one looking at Apixaban vs Warfarin for the same thing. That is a different drug, right?

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02090075

Ah, and look who is involved with both! Matthew Budoff, who seems to know more about CAC than anyone else. Good man.

again, a statement of research ... it will be interesting to see what they uncover.

 

[pellicle]

Hell, I'll throw a few other fish out for those of you who are really too lazy to use a search engine:

and I decided to read those to see if those fish were above or below the bag legal size limit for those too lazy to read:

#1
https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/arrhythmias/27768

FIrst, not a journal, but a news magazine which is reporting: their own disclaimer This article is a collaboration between MedPage Today® and American Heart Association (also a private entity)

It says:
"Atrial fibrillation patients on long-term vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, to prevent stroke have an increased risk for coronary calcium, despite their overall low risk for cardiovascular disease, researchers found."

A good point and worth investigation

"The mean coronary artery calcium scores were significantly higher in those taking blood thinners compared with those not taking them (mean score 29, inter-quartile range 0-184, versus 0, IQR 0-40, P<0.001), reported Bob Weijs, MD, from Maastricht University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, and colleagues."

seems interesting, but it is unknown to me if that score is more than just noteworthy ... also its only one center in the Netherlands who btw use a different drug which while is a coumarin is not warfarin. They went on to write:
"However, it cannot be excluded that a subset of high-risk AF patients does develop detrimental calcification induced by chronic vitamin K antagonist therapy," the authors wrote"

so who are the "HIGH RISK PATIENTS"

Perhaps this will be answered shortly. They then say:
""This is the first study showing that AF patients using vitamin K antagonists despite a low vascular risk show increased levels of coronary calcification," the investigators said.

"These results suggest that the chronic use of vitamin K antagonists may enhance potentially harmful coronary calcification in a subset of low-risk AF patients."

so, its a beginning, not an answer ...
"Because the study was a cross-sectional analysis, researchers were unable to prove a cause and effect relationship between vitamin K antagonists and coronary calcium.

Another limitation of the study is that researchers did not evaluate the effect of other factors on the "biological pathways leading to vitamin K antagonist-induced calcification."

The authors cautioned that while their results are important, they should not be overstated due to the small sample size and the nonrandomization of patients.


So we can put this into the "not conclusive; more research needed

 

[pellicle]

Next #2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5684169/

Recent years, multiple studies regarding clinical efficacy and risks of Warfarin therapy in dialysis patients have been reported, and not a few reports conclude that clinical advantage of Warfarin is questionable in dialysis patients.

"This assumption is recently confirmed by multiple reports, suggesting that the Warfarin administration might be worse harmful than ever expected in dialysis patients who are essentially considered to have higher risk of calcification comparing to non-dialysis patients."

so this is a research about people who are in kidney failure and are dialysis patients ... perhaps they have more to worry about in their long term health.

(Noct is also not on Dialysis and also its worth pointing out does not actually have anything which will put AVR in his own future with any certainty ...)

 

[pellicle]

#3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4859382/

" The increase was noted only in the ankle and foot, was limited to a medial pattern of calcification, and was similar in men and women."

"Warfarin use is associated with lower extremity arterial calcification in both men and women independent of age, sex, diabetes status, and other patient characteristics. This may have implications for the choice of therapies for long-term anticoagulation."

so not the aorta ... right ... next

 

[pellicle]

#4
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22520397

"We conclude that there is a growing need for better understanding of the effects of anticoagulants on vascular calcification and atherosclerosis"

so again, they conclude by saying "we don't have any evidence" ... but hey, that's good enough for Noct right

btw ... what's atherosclerosis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis

The exact cause is not known.[1] Risk factors include high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, family history, and an unhealthy diet.[3] Plaque is made up of fat, cholesterol, calcium, and other substances found in the blood.[7]

don't see warfarin in there, but I do see stuff that challenges Noct ... based on his reported history in posts ...

 

[pellicle]

and last #5

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/...AHA.114.304392

"Warfarin induces arterial calcification in experimental models, but whether this occurs in humans is unclear. This was addressed by examining breast arterial calcification, which is exclusively medial and easily identified on mammograms."

so looking at female breasts ... a complex area which includes much calcium metabolism by design (there is calcium in mothers milk guys)

so watch out if you're a breast feeding mother, but again, it is unclear if this effects the aortic artery

So, as to:

And on and on. Now Pellicle will find some nit to pick that "proves" Warfarin isn't the culprit.

yes ... nitpicking ... better that than have a head full if lice like you do.

Remember, I'm not trying to prove that there is no link, just show that 1) its not a certainty 2) the faults with you using the studies you used to support your argument that there is a clear link with warfarin and aortic calcification.

<Shrug> I'm not trying to convince him.

perhaps just yourself right?

[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/c1.staticflickr.com\/1\/806\/27349360638_657af7173c_b.jpg"}[/IMG2]

I'm just trying to offer advice for any other unfortunates who have AVS as a result of high Lp(a) (as opposed to the more commonly known and understood bicuspid valve) who may come this forum for advice.

although said asker has already had AVS, but not as a result of high Lp(a) ... that is indeed your own fascination.


but then I'm probably just splitting hares again

So, sorry this has taken 5 posts, the board software ate the single unified post.

Bottom line, as identified by other posters just take Vit K2 tablets or capsules and have a healthy diet

 

[Warrick]

Aren't they, though? I think every advertisement I have seen for the new On-X valve has mentioned the lower INR requirement.

Yes but I was under the impression that this was because of the lower bleeding risk benefits rather than you can take less warfarin so it must be good for you because it's rat poison, although the latter is perhaps the "mob"mentality?

I would have thought that due to the fact that everyone on warfarin takes a different dose depending on all the factors such as genetics, diet, age, activeness etc ,it would be more than reasonable to assume that there will still be many users even in the 1.5-2.0 INR range that would require 5mg+ per day to be in range, which is hardly giving rise to the have a lower INR take less warfarin so you don't calcify if it is a selling point

Is someone that is only on 3mg per day like my father( warfarin user for 34 years) going to calcify less than me on 9mg per day for the next 40 years? Has an amount been quantified?

 

[pellicle]

This is some of my latest research FWIW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-84UJpYFRM

this is just disturbing ... how you managed to get this past the "ethical review" panel is beyond me ... they must have some sort of soft underbelly you know about.

 

[Agian]

this is just disturbing ... how you managed to get this past the "ethical review" panel is beyond me ... they must have some sort of soft underbelly you know about.

I posted that in error. Notwithstanding this, I have not invited a response. Please reframe from emailing me in this manner.

 

[pellicle]

I posted that in error. Notwithstanding this, I have not invited a response. Please reframe from emailing me in this manner.

Firstly this was not an email but a board post

Secondly I love gatecrashing posts


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE -- This post is intended only for the person(s) named in the message header. ... Any reading, disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this message (including but not limited to personal pleasure / satisfaction) or any of its attachments by an individual or entity other than the intended recipient is prohibited

 

[Agian]

Firstly this was not an email but a board post

Secondly I love gatecrashing posts


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE -- This post is intended only for the person(s) named in the message header. ... Any reading, disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this message (including but not limited to personal pleasure / satisfaction) or any of its attachments by an individual or entity other than the intended recipient is prohibited

You openly acknowledge that you care not for the appropriateness of your communications and continue to be argumentative with an officer of your employer.

 

[Warrick]

You openly acknowledge that you care not for the appropriateness of your communications and continue to be argumentative with an officer of your employer.

Sheesh sounds like a federal offence to me.... throw the book at him I say... I hear you're part of the soft under belly Mr Big

 

[pellicle]

Sheesh sounds like a federal offence to me.... throw the book at him I say... I hear you're part of the soft under belly Mr Big

he is ... and if I was not out of the country (and fearing being blocked from ever returning) I'd blow the whistle on him

 

[Agian]

Warrick, I've been having issues with a half-wit at work, who thinks he's important. He sends me the funniest emails. Pellicle looks forward to hearing about the three-ring circus, i.e., the author of the emails and a couple of other arseholes.

 

[Peg63]

The bacteria in our gut make vitamin K2, but unless we eat our poo, like rabbits do for example, the K2 is lost. So we have to get K2 from food sources. Vitamin K2 is found in animal products, especially organ meats, also fermented products such as certain cheeses, and egg yolks. Vegetarian sources of K2 are Japanese natto which is fermented soy.

Here's one source of info about K2: http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/060113p54.shtml But just google 'food sources vitamin K2' to find many more links.

I take K2 supplementation as K2-MK7 - this is because I have osteoporosis.
[/QU

The bacteria in our gut make vitamin K2, but unless we eat our poo, like rabbits do for example, the K2 is lost. So we have to get K2 from food sources. Vitamin K2 is found in animal products, especially organ meats, also fermented products such as certain cheeses, and egg yolks. Vegetarian sources of K2 are Japanese natto which is fermented soy.

Here's one source of info about K2: http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/060113p54.shtml But just google 'food sources vitamin K2' to find many more links.

I take K2 supplementation as K2-MK7 - this is because I have osteoporosis.

Hi Paleo Woman, you don't have any reservations taking the Mk2? I had my AVR in December 2018 and prior to that I took Mk2 and when I had my pre cath my arteries were clear except for my calcified bicuspid valve. I went tissue. I would like to go back on the K2 for my bone health but am not sure. I take a low dose aspirin.