Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)
Rainking123123
potential for liver damage? I'm currently taking it now at large
doses (2-8g/day) as it's one of the few things that work for me as a
benzo and for it's powerful nad properties...
William Stacy
I'm thinking of going on some niacin but am concerned about side effects
(I have "metabolic disorder", hypertension, hyperlipidemia and am
overweight; on a lo-carb diet for 4 days now).
I'd like a resonable source for the niacin and some guidance on what to
watch out for.
Thanks
Bill
Mad McFarqhuar
"Rainking123123" <natur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6adf6a42.02120...@posting.google.com...
Diane Richardson
wrote:
http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cda.html-command=Page-pt=General-pageId=103
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
doe
http://www.doctoryourself.com/niacin.html
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus was a vegetarian!
http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
Jesus was a vegetarian! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman
Moses was a mystic! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman/light.html
doe
http://www.laleva.cc/supplements/doctor_yourself.html
Abram Hoffer, M.D., says:
"About Megadose Niacin:
"The factoid niacin causes liver damage is analyzed thoroughly by William
Parsons Jr, who shows that niacin will often increase liver function tests but
that these increases do not arise from liver pathology. (Parsons WB Jr:
Cholesterol Control Without Diet: The Niacin Solution. Lilac Press, Scotsdale,
Arizona 1998. Reviewed in Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Volume 14, 1999,
3rd quarter.)
Dave Bird
2. Individuals with high cholesterol may benefit from pharmacological
doses of nicotinic acid, one form of niacin. It has been shown to
significantly lower blood levels of total cholesterol and triglycerides,
as well as reduce risk of nonfatal heart attack and stroke in the
Coronary Drug Project. Pharmacological doses of the vitamin (over 1
gm/day) are not without risk, however. Flushing, nausea and vomiting may
occur. Liver damage leading to hepatitis has been seen. Large doses of
the vitamin used for cholesterol reduction should only be used under the
supervision of a physician. #############################
##########################
I would reckon you need liver function tests every 3 to 4 weeks.
High-dosing with this material really needs the support of a medically
trained person AND -- I don't think even they could get an adequate
handle on it just with the unaided senses -- access to lab tests.
--
____ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ \_ ___..
.-''/(::::("_o(*)::("_o(*)::("_o''/(*)::("_o(*)::("_o'(*):::(@__o
/\~~/\ /\~~/\ /\~~/\ /\~~/\ /\~~/\ /\~~~/\
If you're not the lead huskie, then the view never changes.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Diane Richardson
wrote:
>In article<3df0d834...@news.bway.net>, Diane Richardson
><ref...@bway.net> writes:
>>On 5 Dec 2002 11:20:37 -0800, natur...@hotmail.com (Rainking123123)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Has anyone uncovered any new regarding high dose niacinamide and the
>>>potential for liver damage? I'm currently taking it now at large
>>>doses (2-8g/day) as it's one of the few things that work for me as a
>>>benzo and for it's powerful nad properties...
>>
>>http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cda.html-command=Page-pt=General-pageId=103
>
> 2. Individuals with high cholesterol may benefit from pharmacological
>doses of nicotinic acid, one form of niacin. It has been shown to
>significantly lower blood levels of total cholesterol and triglycerides,
>as well as reduce risk of nonfatal heart attack and stroke in the
>Coronary Drug Project. Pharmacological doses of the vitamin (over 1
>gm/day) are not without risk, however. Flushing, nausea and vomiting may
>occur. Liver damage leading to hepatitis has been seen. Large doses of
>the vitamin used for cholesterol reduction should only be used under the
>supervision of a physician. #############################
>##########################
>
> I would reckon you need liver function tests every 3 to 4 weeks.
> High-dosing with this material really needs the support of a medically
> trained person AND -- I don't think even they could get an adequate
> handle on it just with the unaided senses -- access to lab tests.
The saddest part of this is that there are now much safer drugs that
reduce cholesterol and triglycerides and reduce the risk of
heart attack and stroke. Besides being safer, they also have few side
effects. They are called "statin" drugs and any physician around would
happily provide a prescription for one of them to anyone with a high
cholesterol level. There have been additional studies showing these
same drugs seem to protect from Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis
too. They are marketed under such names as Zocor and Lipitor.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Paul Chefurka
wrote:
>The saddest part of this is that there are now much safer drugs that
>reduce cholesterol and triglycerides and reduce the risk of
>heart attack and stroke. Besides being safer, they also have few side
>effects. They are called "statin" drugs and any physician around would
>happily provide a prescription for one of them to anyone with a high
>cholesterol level. There have been additional studies showing these
>same drugs seem to protect from Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis
>too. They are marketed under such names as Zocor and Lipitor.
Statins aren't without their side effects. Though they may be infrequent,
they can be extremely severe. In addition, there is a growing sense among
users that the rate of side effects has been drastically understated by the
manufacturers. Personally, I wouldn't touch Lipitor with a 10-foot pole.
To see what some users are saying about their experiences, take a look at
http://www.dispace.com/message_boards/drugs/Lipitor/default.htm
Paul
doe
>Date: 12/6/2002 4:00 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <3df129d2...@news.bway.net>
>The saddest part of this is that there are now much safer drugs that
The saddest part of you posting AT ALL is the fact you can't even tell the
difference between a vitamin and a drug.
>reduce cholesterol and triglycerides and reduce the risk of
>heart attack and stroke. Besides being safer, they also have few side
>effects. They are called "statin" drugs and any physician around would
>happily provide a prescription for one of them to anyone with a high
>cholesterol level.
Blood donation is much safer and much cheaper .. and has NO side effects at
all.
>There have been additional studies showing these
>same drugs seem to protect from Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis
>too. They are marketed under such names as Zocor and Lipitor.
Seem? Sounds like drug promo .
Seems I read somewhere lately drug companies have put out an alert to their
minions to promote their product EVERYWHERE THEY CAN ..
What do you do for a living .. Diane .. ?
I'd hate to think you would work for a bunch of criminals .. ?
Lipitor / Pfizer
Admitted criminals ..
>Pfizer settles Medicaid lawsuit.................................10/29/2002
> Pfizer, Inc pays $49M to settle allegations of defrauding the
> Medicaid health-care program for the poor by charging the gov't too
> much for cholesterol drug Lipitor.
> Wall Street Journal, Scott Hensley
Diane Richardson
wrote:
I have no need to. I've been taking Zocor for 2 years now, and have
not experienced any side effects at all. My mother is also on them
(at age 80) and hasn't had any problems either.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Paul Chefurka
wrote:
If you're going to tout statins as a panacea you should educate yourself as
to their complete effect profile. The fact that you and your mum haven't
experienced any side effects isn't a reasonable basis on which to conclude
that they are safe for everyone (the sample size is just a tad small). As
much as they have helped many people, there are those whose lives have been
devastated by statins. For some, alternatives like niacin and policosanol
(or even just ignoring mildly elevated cholesterol) may be much safer.
Frankly your "I have no need to" comes across like someone sticking their
fingers in their ears and singing "La la la la I can't hear you!" From
what I've seen there is a growing groundswell of opinion among statin users
that is skeptical and downright negative on both the risks and the benefits
of these drugs. To deny that such information is important is blinkered at
best, and reprehensible at worst.
Paul
Dave Bird
There's a whole bunch of stuff listed under cardio-vascular system,
lipid reduction (not an area I know much about). Honestly, if it
was me, I'd just get referred to somebody on the medical side of
the cardio-vascular ward at my local hospital: there is a certain
amount of study and experience required in prescribing :->. The first
thing I would try is just going to the appropriate professional; only
if things went badly and repeatedly wrong, would I start trying to
figure it out for myself instead.
BTW, is the "ghb" gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GABA precursor)? what's the
connection??
-- .---.
It was once believed that a million monkeys at a million { o o }
keyboards would eventually type the works of Shakespeare, _(---)_
but the Internet has since disproved this theory. / \
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>The first
> thing I would try is just going to the appropriate professional; only
> if things went badly and repeatedly wrong, would I start trying to
> figure it out for myself instead.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
The typical smn attitude! :)
You got it precisely backwards.
The final determination of what is best for the patient is both the
right and responsibility of the individual patient.
--
John Gohde,
Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: N...@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering De-Medicalization by
handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and
autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life's problems as
medical.
Paul Chefurka
> BTW, is the "ghb" gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GABA precursor)? what's the
> connection??
It's a date-rape drug. I didn't notice this thread was being cross-posted
to that ng or I'd have trimmed the list.
Paul
Steve Harris
news:lt67vu4ig93kcku2s...@4ax.com...
It's not a date rape drug. It's still sold in Europe, and unless you're
willing to postulate the Europeans enjoy being raped or encouraging rape,
you're going to have to revise your ideas.
Yes, GHB (sold in health food stores until 1990 in the US) did get smeared
as a "date rape drug" by those who wanted to make is as illegal as LSD
(which they succeeded in doing, amazingly). Just like Rohypnol (also still
sold in Europe). But this only means that drugs (think Thalidomide) can be
subjected to witchhunts like people can, and since drugs can't defend
themselves, they are subject to mob rule and false imprisonment, too.
Much to the loss of society. When it was legal, I was using GHB as part of a
very successful resuscitation cocktail in animal research-- it damps out
post anoxic seizure activity beutifually and with no side effects. Now, I
can't get the stuff, courtesy of the asses to said it had no legitimate
recognized medical use.
Well, they are right-- it doesn't. And if you can keep experimenters from
getting it, it never will.
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Paul Chefurka
Sorry to ruffle your feathers, Steve. I'm obviously an example of the
successful marketing exercise conducted by the drug lords (sorry,
czars...). I wasn't aware of the legitimate uses of GHB, only the lurid
newspaper stories (and Nick Nolte's recent DUI arrest). I agree
wholeheartedly that the criminalization of most of these substances amounts
to a witch hunt founded in the puritanical fear that someone, somewhere
might be having a good time.
Paul
Quentin Grady
>But this only means that drugs (think Thalidomide) can be
>subjected to witchhunts like people can, and since drugs can't defend
>themselves, they are subject to mob rule and false imprisonment, too.
G'day G'day Steve,
At a school where I taught there was a student with hands coming out
of her shoulders. We were told it was the result of thalidomide. For
a while there was some speculation that thalidomide didn't cause the
deformities but merely allowed deformed fetuses to survive. It
sounded rather like clever evasion and I was under the impression that
this suggestion had been refuted. That said ... when things are not in
the media spotlight one loses track of the nuances in how the fate of
these matters unravel with time.
Are you saying that after all the hoopla had died down thalidomide
wasn't implicated in the deformities?
If you are not then please elucidate the point you are making.
Thanks,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."
Steve Harris
news:oh98vuo9moe8qt76g...@4ax.com...
> This post not CC'd by email
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:48:40 -0700, "Steve Harris"
> <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
> >But this only means that drugs (think Thalidomide) can be
> >subjected to witchhunts like people can, and since drugs can't defend
> >themselves, they are subject to mob rule and false imprisonment, too.
>
> G'day G'day Steve,
>
> At a school where I taught there was a student with hands coming out
> of her shoulders. We were told it was the result of thalidomide. For
> a while there was some speculation that thalidomide didn't cause the
> deformities but merely allowed deformed fetuses to survive. It
> sounded rather like clever evasion and I was under the impression that
> this suggestion had been refuted. That said ... when things are not in
> the media spotlight one loses track of the nuances in how the fate of
> these matters unravel with time.
>
> Are you saying that after all the hoopla had died down thalidomide
> wasn't implicated in the deformities?
>
> If you are not then please elucidate the point you are making.
>
> Thanks,
Thalidomide would be bad to give to women of childbearing years. But for
women over 55 and girls under 10, as well as all males, it might be very
helpful for cancer, leprosy, and certain autoimmune diseases. But it got
vilified for 30 years and we lost all that time.
There are NO bad drugs, and that includes the illegal ones. Just bad combos
of particular drugs and particular people. The specifics of which, if your
IQ is over room temp, you can often figure out.
--
Steve Harris
You can email me at sbhar...@ix.netcom.com
But remove the numerals in the address first.
==============================
Our nada who art in Nada
Nada be thy nada..
-- Dada Hemingway
==========================
Sandy
Eg, heroin is a fine analgesic, and is actually quite harmless if
taken pure and under the dose that stops you breathing. Even then, if
someone has the presence of mind to keep air going, that will pass.
Sandy
Dave Bird
<DeMan@[94]> writes:
>Once upon a time, our fellow Dave Bird
> rambled on about "Re: Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)."
>Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>The first
>> thing I would try is just going to the appropriate professional; only
>> if things went badly and repeatedly wrong, would I start trying to
>> figure it out for myself instead.
>
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
>The typical smn attitude! :)
>
>You got it precisely backwards.
>
>The final determination of what is best for the patient is both the
>right and responsibility of the individual patient.
I have sometimes been forced into messing around in things myself.
But the FIRST resort of anyone sensible is to see if the qualified
mechanic can fix it :->
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html
Quentin Grady
<SBHar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Thalidomide would be bad to give to women of childbearing years. But for
>women over 55 and girls under 10, as well as all males, it might be very
>helpful for cancer, leprosy, and certain autoimmune diseases. But it got
>vilified for 30 years and we lost all that time.
>
>There are NO bad drugs, and that includes the illegal ones. Just bad combos
>of particular drugs and particular people. The specifics of which, if your
>IQ is over room temp, you can often figure out.
G'day G'day Steve,
Something similar could be said of many horticultural sprays
"Just bad combos of particular sprays and particular ecosystems."
The problem seems to be that once the chemicals are in the system they
are difficult to get out and they spread beyond their intended area of
use.
FWIIW one doesn't require an IQ above 293 to notice you have remained
true to form. With the group having lost some of its stalwarts who
did have something worth saying it is reassuring to find you
demonstrating a certain predictable consistency.
Paul Chefurka
wrote:
>This post not CC'd by email
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:18:09 -0700, "Steve Harris"
><SBHar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>There are NO bad drugs, and that includes the illegal ones. Just bad combos
>>of particular drugs and particular people. The specifics of which, if your
>>IQ is over room temp, you can often figure out.
>
>G'day G'day Steve,
>
>FWIIW one doesn't require an IQ above 293 to notice you have remained
>true to form.
Wow, Quentin - your room temperature is 293? No wonder you get hot under
the collar from time to time ;-)
Paul
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>I have sometimes been forced into messing around in things myself.
> But the FIRST resort of anyone sensible is to see if the qualified
> mechanic can fix it :->
Obviously, I disagree!
A normal person would only see a doctor for a *major* medical problem,
*not* for a minor problem. You would see the doctor *only* if the
minor problem did not respond to home treatment.
Your attitude is precisely why health insurance is so expensive. :(
The final determination of what is best for the patient is both the
right and responsibility of the individual patient.
Quentin Grady
wrote:
>>FWIIW one doesn't require an IQ above 293 to notice you have remained
>>true to form.
>
>Wow, Quentin - your room temperature is 293? No wonder you get hot under
>the collar from time to time ;-)
>
>Paul
Thanks Paul,
While it is possible I richly deserve the comment from time to time
the matter of standard room temperature does follow certain
nationalistic trends. In New Zealand it is 293, in the UK where the
prefer five degrees cooler it is 288 and in the USA 527. This could
account for the high proportion of Americans with metabolic disorders
... they don't need to burn so many calories to stay warm ... but I
doubt it. <grin>
Thanks again, IMHO it is delightful that we can all retain a sense of
humour.
Dave Bird
<DeMan@[94]> writes:
>Once upon a time, our fellow Dave Bird
> rambled on about "Re: Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)."
>Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>I have sometimes been forced into messing around in things myself.
>> But the FIRST resort of anyone sensible is to see if the qualified
>> mechanic can fix it :->
>
>Obviously, I disagree!
>
>A normal person would only see a doctor for a *major* medical problem,
>*not* for a minor problem. You would see the doctor *only* if the
>minor problem did not respond to home treatment.
You are answering a point I did not make. Yes, zero of all I would
not want to trouble the doctor with a minor problem I could clear
up for myself. Then first of all, if a problem was serious and
persistent, I would hope that a qualified person could sort it out
for me. If I found they could not, then I would trouble myself to
understand, and intervene in, my own treatment.
>
>Your attitude is precisely why health insurance is so expensive. :(
We have a national health service. I am afraid I do have chronic
problems which cost it money :-( This was not so until 5 or 10
years ago.
>
>The final determination of what is best for the patient is both the
>right and responsibility of the individual patient.
FINAL, yes.
-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___.
uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:': :' .:':' :. . : (") #oH|
' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~|
< > __ ,;;,. \\::// R_) |
'-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' ' ___..\||/....L\. ...|
____||--|_'--/__\___ '' .--''':::::::::::::::::::::
\ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^
LRon Hubbard is shelled by goats in hell <www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/ >
Sandy
<que...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>This post not CC'd by email
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:18:09 -0700, "Steve Harris"
><SBHar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Thalidomide would be bad to give to women of childbearing years. But for
>>women over 55 and girls under 10, as well as all males, it might be very
>>helpful for cancer, leprosy, and certain autoimmune diseases. But it got
>>vilified for 30 years and we lost all that time.
>>
>>There are NO bad drugs, and that includes the illegal ones. Just bad combos
>>of particular drugs and particular people. The specifics of which, if your
>>IQ is over room temp, you can often figure out.
>
>G'day G'day Steve,
>
> Something similar could be said of many horticultural sprays
>"Just bad combos of particular sprays and particular ecosystems."
What did you have in mind here?
>The problem seems to be that once the chemicals are in the system they
>are difficult to get out and they spread beyond their intended area of
>use.
I can only think of DDT 50 years ago. Is this what you had in mind?
Sandy
Eric Bohlman
> While it is possible I richly deserve the comment from time to time
> the matter of standard room temperature does follow certain
> nationalistic trends. In New Zealand it is 293, in the UK where the
> prefer five degrees cooler it is 288 and in the USA 527. This could
> account for the high proportion of Americans with metabolic disorders
> ... they don't need to burn so many calories to stay warm ... but I
> doubt it. <grin>
Hehehe. Every so often we get a TV "weatherman" or radio announcer who
tries to make a ratio comparison of temperatures ("it's twice as hot as it
was last week"). I suppose adopting absolute temperature scales would put
an end to that bit o' fluff.
Quentin Grady
wrote:
>Hehehe. Every so often we get a TV "weatherman" or radio announcer who
>tries to make a ratio comparison of temperatures ("it's twice as hot as it
>was last week"). I suppose adopting absolute temperature scales would put
>an end to that bit o' fluff.
G'day G'day Eric,
I like the reports of the Canadian weatherman who exclaimed that
there was no temperature today. (It was zero Fahrenheit.)
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Thalidomide Innocent? Was Re: GHB Re:
Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>>In New Zealand it is 293, in the UK where the
>> prefer five degrees cooler it is 288 and in the USA 527.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
The US uses the Fahrenheit temperature scale. Those temperature
reading are clearly not the Celsius temperature scale either. Are you
on drugs or is New Zealand even stranger than Eurpope?
Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, you twit!!!
Normal room temperature in the States is around 78 degrees Fahrenheit.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about
prevention. Beware of anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet,
eating crispbread, non-dairy coffee creamer, being overweight, or
about smoking!