Article on Sat Fat in Heart Newletter

[W. Baker]

Here s an article on sat fat in the heartwire newsletter I get. I hope
the comments on it are also in there as they are also very interesting.

http://www.theheart.org/article/1541231.do?utm_medium=email&utm_source=20130520_heartwire&utm_campaign=newsletter

Wendy

[GysdeJongh]

Thx Wendy,

<http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/3/294.abstract?sid=997c0cf7-e224-4cea-a08b-5d86872e3bb6>

Adv Nutr. 2013 May 1;4(3):294-302. doi: 10.3945/an.113.003657.
Dietary fats and health: dietary recommendations in the context of
scientific evidence.
PMID: 23674795

Gys

[randyf]

Susan wrote:
> Shelley Wood. Processed meats—but not red meat—linked with
> cardiovascular deaths. theheart.org. [Clinical Conditions > Prevention >
> Prevention]; Mar 7, 2013. Accessed athttp://www.theheart.org/article/1514675.doon May 21, 2013
>
> "Of note, say the authors, while a signal of increased mortality was
> seen among the highest consumers of red meat in general, the risk for
> red meat was much lower that that of processed meats and lost
> statistical significance after correction for measurement error."

This deserves a closer look.
Here's the view of the authors of the link you provided:
//******************
"As the authors point out, processed meats tend to contain more
saturated fat than unprocessed meat (where the fat is often trimmed
off), as well as more cholesterol and additives, often as part of the
smoking or curing process. Some of these are believed to be
carcinogenic or precursors to carcinogenic processes. "Another factor
is the content of salt in processed-meat products, which is linked to
hypertension, which is a CVD risk factor," Rohrmann told heartwire.
"Heme iron is another mechanism, which links meat consumption to CVD
risk, but that's not limited to processed meat."
//******************

In summary it's the saturated fat and salt in the processed meats
that's causing the problems. The two elements you have continually
said are Not a problem.

Further on in the link the authors state:
//****************
Other studies have singled out processed meats as particularly
hazardous to health. US analyses of meat consumption and mortality,
drawing on data from two large, long-running US studies, have also
documented the link between meat consumption and CVD and cancer
deaths, but the stronger association seen with processed meats in this
European cohort is somewhat at odds with the American data.

"Although we did not find a statistically significant association
between unprocessed red-meat consumption and mortality in our studies,
the two US studies did," Rohrmann said. "Therefore, we would not say
that there is definitely no association [between red-meat consumption
and CVD]. What I think our studies show is that it's okay to eat a
moderate amount of meat—300 to 600 g per week as recommended by many
nutrition societies—for intake of some important minerals and
vitamins; however, a balanced vegetarian diet is, of course, okay as
well."
//*****************
That is in the US two very large studies have documented *red meat*
not just *processed meat* with CVD and cancer deaths.

Randy

[randyf]

[randyf]

That is, in the US two very large studies have documented *red meat*

[Julie Bove]

"Susan" <su...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
news:b01vh5...@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes

> Yep, saw that, too.
>
> Get ready for the predictable tizzies. ;-)
>
> In case that wasn't enough, here's a nice corollary:

>
>
> Shelley Wood. Processed meats�but not red meat�linked with cardiovascular
> deaths. theheart.org. [Clinical Conditions > Prevention > Prevention]; Mar

> 7, 2013. Accessed at http://www.theheart.org/article/1514675.do on May 21,

> 2013
>
> "Of note, say the authors, while a signal of increased mortality was seen
> among the highest consumers of red meat in general, the risk for red meat
> was much lower that that of processed meats and lost statistical
> significance after correction for measurement error."
>
>

> Susan

No worries here then. Only eat occasional bacon or turkey.

[W. Baker]

Julie Bove <juli...@frontier.com> wrote:

: "Susan" <su...@nothanks.org> wrote in message

: news:b01vh5...@mid.individual.net...
: > x-no-archive: yes
: >
: > On 5/21/2013 2:05 PM, W. Baker wrote:
: >> Here s an article on sat fat in the heartwire newsletter I get. I hope
: >> the comments on it are also in there as they are also very interesting.
: >>
: >> http://www.theheart.org/article/1541231.do?utm_medium=email&utm_source=20130520_heartwire&utm_campaign=newsletter
: >>
: >
: > Yep, saw that, too.
: >
: > Get ready for the predictable tizzies. ;-)
: >
: > In case that wasn't enough, here's a nice corollary:
: >
: >

: > Shelley Wood. Processed meats?but not red meat?linked with cardiovascular

: > deaths. theheart.org. [Clinical Conditions > Prevention > Prevention]; Mar
: > 7, 2013. Accessed at http://www.theheart.org/article/1514675.do on May 21,
: > 2013
: >
: > "Of note, say the authors, while a signal of increased mortality was seen
: > among the highest consumers of red meat in general, the risk for red meat
: > was much lower that that of processed meats and lost statistical
: > significance after correction for measurement error."
: >
: >
: > Susan

: No worries here then. Only eat occasional bacon or turkey.

but you buy deli-type turkey, not home roasted so tht is also a processed
food with all those chemicals.

And for Randy, many of the studies we have seen osted on this board have
alwasy lumped red meat and processed without giving evidence that the red
meat was as bad as the processed. We have often discussed this here and
most have concluded that the ricessed meat with all the excess salt and
chemicals from the smoking etc were, apparently, the major culprit.
Frankly, I don't know who eats all that pricessed meats unless they have
bacon everyday and use deli sandwich meats inplace of freshly cooked plain
meat. For me, an occasional piece of salami is big teat,not aneveryday
food. I suppose many of he cured hams also woudl have the problems of
processed meat. As I can't eat ham or bacon they don't enter my world of
food so I guess I eat less processed meat than many.

Wendy

[Julie Bove]

"W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:knhas0$6tm$5...@reader1.panix.com...

I know people who eat sandwich meat at least once a day.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Julie Bove formuleerde de vraag :

Meatloaf?
M.

[mainframetech]

On May 22, 12:21 am, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@frontier.com> wrote:
> "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:knhas0$6tm$5...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Julie Bove <julieb...@frontier.com> wrote:
>
> > : "Susan" <su...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
> > :news:b01vh5...@mid.individual.net...
> > : > x-no-archive: yes
> > : >
> > : > On 5/21/2013 2:05 PM, W. Baker wrote:
> > : >> Here s an article on sat fat in the heartwire  newsletter I get.  I
> > hope
> > : >> the comments on it are also in there as they are also very
> > interesting.
> > : >>
> > : >>

> >http://www.theheart.org/article/1541231.do?utm_medium=email&utm_sourc...

> > : >>
> > : >
> > : > Yep, saw that, too.
> > : >
> > : > Get ready for the predictable tizzies.   ;-)
> > : >
> > : > In case that wasn't enough, here's a nice corollary:
> > : >
> > : >
> > : > Shelley Wood. Processed meats?but not red meat?linked with
> > cardiovascular
> > : > deaths. theheart.org. [Clinical Conditions > Prevention > Prevention];
> > Mar

> > : > 7, 2013. Accessed athttp://www.theheart.org/article/1514675.doon May

> > 21,
> > : > 2013
> > : >
> > : > "Of note, say the authors, while a signal of increased mortality was
> > seen
> > : > among the highest consumers of red meat in general, the risk for red
> > meat
> > : > was much lower that that of processed meats and lost statistical
> > : > significance after correction for measurement error."
> > : >
> > : >
> > : > Susan
>
> > : No worries here then.  Only eat occasional bacon or turkey.
> > but you buy deli-type turkey, not home roasted so tht is also a processed
> > food with all those chemicals.
>
> > And for Randy, many of the studies we have seen osted on this board have
> > alwasy lumped red meat and processed without giving evidence that the red
> > meat was as bad as the processed.  We have often discussed this here and
> > most have concluded that the ricessed meat with all the excess salt and
> > chemicals from the smoking etc were, apparently, the major culprit.
> > Frankly, I don't know who eats all that pricessed meats unless they have
> > bacon everyday and use deli sandwich meats inplace of freshly cooked plain
> > meat.  For me, an occasional piece of salami is big teat,not aneveryday
> > food.  I suppose many of he cured hams also woudl have the problems of
> > processed meat.  As I can't eat ham or bacon they don't enter my world of
> > food so I guess I eat less processed meat than many.
>
> I know people who eat sandwich meat at least once a day.

The concern about cholesterol and saturated fats became well known
after a study called "The Seven Countries Study". It was a major
HOAX, since the author 'Ancel Keys' reported that the 7 countries
proved his hypothesis that cholesterol and saturated fats were causing
heart disease, when the study used 21 countries. The other 14
countries proved that cholesterol and saturated fats didn't cause
heart attacks or strokes, but Keys didn't mention them.

Fade in the drug corporations that were working on a way to reduce
cholesterol. They began advertising the lowering of cholesterol which
was thought was causing heart attacks and strokes. They became so
popular that the advertising was carried on for years and people
hearing the same thing daily, even from doctors who were advertised to
more often, thought that lowering cholesterol was almost the most
important thing going.

Now a number of studies are showing that statins don't do much of
anything good for people, and the information is being spread by some
courageous doctors for years now that cholesterol is important to the
human body and cutting it down may have unforeseen results.


http://spacedoc.com/
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/15/great-cholesterol-myth/

Chris

[W. Baker]

Julie Bove <juli...@frontier.com> wrote:

: "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message

Andmany of them school kids takign a lunch to school. what's esie rthan a
few slices of balogna between two pieces ofbead and some kids will only
eat that. You know, all those fussy eaterswho find everything else yuck.

Wendy

[Maya Zuiderweg]

W. Baker bracht volgend idï¿œe uit :

But Wendy, that is "good" food. Worse is that in many schools Coca Cola
has vending machines. Schools let them, because of the money. Anyway, a
lot of kids here throw their sandwich away and buy french fries with
mayonaise. Or some other yuckey fast food.
M.

[W. Baker]

Chris Hogg <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
: On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:16:44 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech
: <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:


: >
: > Now a number of studies are showing that statins don't do much of

: >anything good for people, and the information is being spread by some
: >courageous doctors for years now that cholesterol is important to the
: >human body and cutting it down may have unforeseen results.
: >
: >
: >http://spacedoc.com/
: >http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
: >http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/15/great-cholesterol-myth/
: >
: >Chris

: Hmmm. I'm interested in statins, because for several years now, each
: time I go for my 6-monthly diabetes review at our health centre, I get
: offered statins. So far I've refused them, but for various reasons I'm
: now seriously considering going on to them. I've not yet read the
: articles you quote, but they probably convey the same message as other
: articles from the Ravnskof - Kendrick group. I have always assumed
: their conclusions (inter alia, that cholesterol is irrelevant to CVD,
: and hence statins are neither necessary nor desirable) relate to
: normal healthy folks, not diabetics.

: Almost exactly ten years ago the conclusions of two studies of
: diabetics taking statins were published by Diabetes UK:

: "The Heart Protection Study was funded by the Medical Research Council
: and the British Heart Foundation. It looked at the effect of
: cholesterol-lowering statins in people with diabetes. The trial used
: 6,000 people with diabetes and it showed that the use of statins cuts
: the risk of heart attack, stroke or revascularisation operations by
: one third in patients with diabetes. If the findings are acted on it
: could prevent at least 10,000 heart attacks, stokes and
: revascularisation operations each year in the UK.

: The second study, the Collaborative AtoRvastatin Diabetes Study
: (CARDS) was sponsored by Diabetes UK, the Department of Health and
: Pfizer UK. It involved almost 3,000 people with Type 2 diabetes and
: was designed to compare the effectiveness of lipid-lowering drugs for
: the prevention of cardiovascular disease. The trial was due to be
: completed in June 2005 but has been stopped early because results
: collected already showed a significant benefit and the data strongly
: suggests that statins benefit certain people with Type 2 diabetes."

: Whether the studies achieved their results by reducing cholesterol, or
: whether that was irrelevant and some other mechanism such as reduced
: inflammation was responsible, isn't known AFAIK (reduced cholesterol
: was assumed). But one can't get away from the fact that significant
: reductions in heart attack, stroke etc were achieved, so much so that
: the CARDS study was terminated early because to continue it in the
: face of the evidence would have been unethical.

: Have these conclusions (for diabetics) been superceded in the
: intervening years?

: --
:
: Chris

: T2 DX'd 2002, D&E, HbA1c 5.9, BMI 21
: Lipids:Tot 5.2 HDL 1.6 LDL 3.2 Tri 0.8

I can't speak to current research, but I am aware that there area number
of peope onthis group who had very nasty reactions to the Statins and,
naturally, have discontinued them. Others of us have not had these
reactins and many of us still take statins in various concentrations. I
hav been on 2 mg for at least 16-17 years adn have been a known diabetic
for 30 years adn have good lipids and no side effects that I am aware of.
I think it is an individual call. In all my time adn I am now 77, I have
not had any CVD although I weigh more than I should.

Anecdotal, but that is what I can offer.

Wendy

[Julie Bove]

"Maya Zuiderweg" <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote in
message news:5ZOdnX04a9WPfQHM...@giganews.com...
>
> Meatloaf?
> M.

I suppose that meatloaf could contain the bad stuff. But mine doesn't. I
use lean ground beef, an egg substitute, loads of vegetables, vegetable
juice, ketchup, chili powder and seasonings. Some people do use sausage and
bacon.

[Colt T]

I ordered 3 more bottles of 500 mg niacin an hr ago.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Julie Bove heeft uiteengezet op 23-5-2013 :

Erm, Julie, it was a joke. Loaf of bread. And meat. Sandwiches with
meat between the erm...erm slices (?) of bread.
M.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Colt T was zeer hard aan het denken :

> I ordered 3 more bottles of 500 mg niacin an hr ago.

In 1/2 an hour I will take melatonin, 3 tablets, in each of them 10mg
added niacin.
M.

[outsider]

On 5/22/2013 4:40 PM, Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes

>
> On 5/22/2013 5:22 PM, W. Baker wrote:
>
>> I can't speak to current research, but I am aware that there area number
>> of peope onthis group who had very nasty reactions to the Statins and,
>> naturally, have discontinued them.
>

> My mother died from the effects of statins. Others have slow, insidious
> kinds of effects that they and their doctors don't connect to the drug,
> calling it something else, like aging.

The time has arrived, and possibly passed, that I should/must change
my PCP. He wasn't very happy when I stated that when new symptoms
arise, the first thing to blame is medications, and he's trying to
blame getting older for his new symptom of dizziness and balance
issues while taking Amiodarone.

First you substitute another drug. Then if the problem persists, you
*might* be right that it wasn't the medication. There's more work
to be done before you have a final answer.

His judgment seems to have been getting impaired over the past few
years, and that's a dangerous thing for me. Lotsa luck, Doc. Been
swell knowing you but it is time for me to move on.

> Others of us have not had these
>> reactins and many of us still take statins in various concentrations. I
>> hav been on 2 mg for at least 16-17 years adn have been a known diabetic
>> for 30 years adn have good lipids and no side effects that I am aware of.
>> I think it is an individual call. In all my time adn I am now 77, I have
>> not had any CVD although I weigh more than I should.
>

> And you're in a group who's not supposed to be rx'ed statins.
>
> Susan

[outsider]

I personally grind beef for meatloaf and the occasional hamburger. In
the local supermarkets you can give them your choice of beef and get
them to grind it for you with or without trimming fat. I might have
meatloaf as much as twice a year. Bacon across the top is a nice
touch, if I happen to have any in the fridge.

[mainframetech]

On May 22, 11:40 am, Maya Zuiderweg <
$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> W. Baker bracht volgend id e uit :

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Julie Bove <julieb...@frontier.com> wrote:
>
> >> "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>news:knhas0$6tm$5...@reader1.panix.com...

> >>> Julie Bove <julieb...@frontier.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Susan" <su...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
> >>>>news:b01vh5...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >>>>> On 5/21/2013 2:05 PM, W. Baker wrote:
> >>>>>> Here s an article on sat fat in the heartwire  newsletter I get.  I
> >>>>>> hope the comments on it are also in there as they are also very
> >>>>>> interesting.
>

> >>>>>>http://www.theheart.org/article/1541231.do?utm_medium=email&utm_sourc...

>
> >>>>> Yep, saw that, too.
>
> >>>>> Get ready for the predictable tizzies.   ;-)
>
> >>>>> In case that wasn't enough, here's a nice corollary:
>
> >>>>> Shelley Wood. Processed meats?but not red meat?linked with
> >>>>> cardiovascular deaths. theheart.org. [Clinical Conditions > Prevention >
> >>>>> Prevention];  Mar 7, 2013. Accessed at

> >>>>>http://www.theheart.org/article/1514675.doon May  21, 2013

Coke has gone a step further by joining Dietary associations to
look good.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/10/how-ada-are-manipulated-by-food-industry.aspx

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 22, 2:37 pm, Chris Hogg <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:16:44 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech
>

> <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >   Now a number of studies are showing that statins don't do much of
> >anything good for people, and the information is being spread by some
> >courageous doctors for years now that cholesterol is important to the
> >human body and cutting it down may have unforeseen results.
>
> >http://spacedoc.com/
> >http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
> >http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/15/great-cholesterol-myth/
>
> >Chris
>

I think the question is whether the studies in question were on the
up and up. It's too easy for the industry to manipulate the studies
and the articles stemming from them. Remember, the FDA has said that
one of the side effects of statins is diabetes. It's difficult for me
to think that statins can cause diabetes and in the same breath help
it.

One way I think about it is if you don't get enough vitamin C you
get scurvy. If you don't get enough vitamin D you get rickets. What
do you get if you don't get enough cholesterol? Cholesterol is used
in many critical places. Each of us has a level that we should not go
below for these various elements we need. But we don't know our low
level of cholesterol where it becomes dangerous to lower it past.
Cholesterol is used by the body in many ways. Some critical. One
of the most important uses is in the nervous system. That may be
related to the 'memory loss' that the FDA finally announced with
statins.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/cholesterol/how-the-body-uses-cholesterol.htm

So far I'm just speaking of anyone, but most of the same problems
fall onto diabetics too.

If you're considering them now, even though they do nothing
beneficial for you, I urge you to look into what the doctors say that
are against doing any lowering of cholesterol.

[mainframetech]

On May 22, 5:40 pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 5/22/2013 5:22 PM, W. Baker wrote:
>

> > I can't speak to current research, but I am aware that there area number
> > of peope onthis group who had very nasty reactions to the Statins and,
> > naturally, have discontinued them.
>

> My mother died from the effects of statins.  Others have slow, insidious
> kinds of effects that they and their doctors don't connect to the drug,
> calling it something else, like aging.
>

>    Others of us have not had these
>
> > reactins and many of us still take statins in various concentrations.  I
> > hav been on 2 mg for at least 16-17 years adn have been a known diabetic
> > for 30 years adn have good lipids and no side effects that I am aware of.
> > I think it is an individual call.  In all my time adn I am now 77, I have
> > not had any CVD although I weigh more than I should.
>

> And you're in a group who's not supposed to be rx'ed statins.
>
> Susan

My brother lived in Florida and was retired from being a tugboat
captain. He took Lipitor for about a year based on a doctor's
recommendation, and just like Dr. Graveline predicted, he got memory
loss. He lost periods up to 12 hours at a time on various days. He
stopped taking the statin and his memories slowly came back. Duane
Graveline, MD wrote "Lipitor: Thief of Memory" and it was published
in 2001. It took from then to last year for the FDA to announce that
memory loss was a possible side effect.

The doctor's are hit harder with the advertising and studies and
every kind of proof in the worlds to keep them prescribing statins.
For some of them it's a profitable product. And if you have a side
effect, as Susan says it's not always obvious where the trouble is
coming from. As well, a doctor really doesn't want to tell most folks
that they prescribed a drug that did harm to the patient.

It's really worth a look into why some doctors don't like statins,
or don't like lowering cholesterol.

Chris

[randyf]

mainframetech wrote:
>   I think the question is whether the studies in question were on the
> up and up.  It's too easy for the industry to manipulate the studies
> and the articles stemming from them.

Here we go again. That's a question that only you and a few outliers
(on ASD) consider relevant on the particular issue.

Also the UK studies (I think) were not industry sponsored. The
government wanted to know if this stuff worked. If so it saves them
money.In fact, in the UK (unless this has changed) you can buy statins
Over the Counter without a script.

You can do the same thing in the US at health food stores with
something called Red Rice Yeast. Contains a natural statin.

mainframetech wrote:
>Remember, the FDA has said that
> one of the side effects of statins is diabetes.  It's difficult for me
> to think that statins can cause diabetes and in the same breath help
> it.

The data that Chris reported Didn't say statins were helpful for
treating diabetes.
What he pointed out was the statin reduce heart attackes and mortality
in diabetics.

Also if you would take the time to look at the data, you would see
that the number of new diabetes case associated with statins was
much, much lower than the deaths and heart attacks prevented.

Randy

[randyf]

mainframetech wrote:
>    Now a number of studies are showing that statins don't do much of
> anything good for people, and the information is being spread by some
> courageous doctors for years now that cholesterol is important to the
> human body and cutting it down may have unforeseen results.
>
> http://spacedoc.com/http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htmhttp://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/15/great-cholesterol-myth/
>
> Chris

In addition to the excellent reference Chris Hogg provided and I'd to
add the view of Dr. William Davies after the results of the Jupiter
study (industry sponsored) were reported.

For the those that don't know Dr.Davis is one of the leaders of
alternate,diet and heavy supplement camp for the treatment of CVD
issues. He's definitely in the anti-pharma, heavy supplement low carb
club. Never been a big fan of statins (until the Jupiter study).

Here's what he said after the results of the Jupiter study were
published:

//**********************
First of all, let me make clear that I am not a fan of prescription
drugs. I view drugs as a necessary evil necessary in selected
situations, e.g., antibiotics for pneumonia or wound infection, clot-
busting drugs when blood clots are present, and acute or catastrophic
situations. I am definitely not a fan of drugs in chronic conditions
whenever they can also be addressed with simple, more natural means.

Nonetheless, the JUPITER trial results are, admittedly, impressive.
Benefits held true for both males and females. At the very least,
JUPITER should put to rest some of the fringe arguments that statins
do not reduce cardiovascular events. They do. There is no sense in
arguing against that. While we might argue about the value of statins
in various subsets of people, there is no doubt that they do indeed
exert a significant effect.

Crestor® treatment resulted in 44% reduction in nonfatal heart attack,
nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina,
revascularization (bypass surgery, stents) and death from
cardiovascular causes. The reduction in nonfatal heart attack was most
marked at 55%.
//**************************

Nough said.

Randy

[Julie Bove]

"Chris Hogg" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:e8irp8d1c8a93esnd...@4ax.com...

> I don't doubt for a moment that a few people get side effects from
> statins; my mother did, for example. For some, those side effects can
> be serious. But a few people get side effects from almost every drug.
> I also don't doubt that big pharma can _on_rare_occasion_, manipulate
> results of a study to present those results in their favour. But to
> suggest that all studies in which big pharma is directly or indirectly
> involved are biased or distorted is cynical beyond reason.
>
> But you haven't addressed my point, that statins have been shown to
> have a major impact on the occurrence of heart attack and stroke in
> diabetic patients. Forget lipids; forget cholesterol. They may have
> nothing to do with that outcome, which was that statins save lives.
> The mechanism may be in dispute, but you can't ignore the outcome.
>
> See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12114036?dopt=Abstract
> and
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15707477
>
> Nor did you answer my last question, have these conclusions (_for_
> diabetics_) been superceded in the intervening years?

Must disagree with you there. They have *only* been shown to help men of a
certain age who have already had a heart attack. Got no links for ya but
those links have been posted here time and again.

[Don Roberto]

On 5/23/2013 1:36 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:09:27 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech
> <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>

> I don't doubt for a moment that a few people get side effects from
> statins; my mother did, for example. For some, those side effects can
> be serious. But a few people get side effects from almost every drug.
> I also don't doubt that big pharma can _on_rare_occasion_, manipulate
> results of a study to present those results in their favour. But to
> suggest that all studies in which big pharma is directly or indirectly
> involved are biased or distorted is cynical beyond reason.
>
> But you haven't addressed my point, that statins have been shown to
> have a major impact on the occurrence of heart attack and stroke in
> diabetic patients. Forget lipids; forget cholesterol. They may have
> nothing to do with that outcome, which was that statins save lives.
> The mechanism may be in dispute, but you can't ignore the outcome.
>
> See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12114036?dopt=Abstract
> and
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15707477
>
> Nor did you answer my last question, have these conclusions (_for_

> diabetics_) been superceded in the intervening years?
>

Did you know that
SUPERPARANOID CONSPIRACY NUT Chris
has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Julie Bove]

"Chris Hogg" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:dvvrp89u7q4qcms5p...@4ax.com...

> I thought that was aspirin. But the abstract of the second study I
> referred to, CARDS, says that "The Collaborative AtoRvastatin Diabetes
> Study (CARDS) is the first large primary prevention study to focus
> specifically on the role of a statin in patients aged 40-75 years with
> type 2 diabetes, but no signs or symptoms of pre-existing vascular
> disease and who had only average or below average cholesterol levels."
> Note the comment 'no signs of pre-existing vascular disease'.
>
> Perhaps there's been something more recently.

It's aspirin too. And the reports I have seen said there is *no* benefit to
lowering cholesterol, except perhaps to make the Dr. happy. No benefit to
the patient. Only harm. Unless they are in that group that I previously
mentioned.

[outsider]

On 5/23/2013 7:56 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 05:00:23 -0700, "Julie Bove"

> I'm not talking about the benefits of lowering cholesterol as such,
> nor am I talking about the population in general, where your comments
> may apply. I'm talking about the actual observed reduction in the
> incidence of death from CV and/or stroke events specifically for
> diabetics when taking statins, mechanism uncertain. The CARDS study
> showed that, amongst other things, quote 'total mortality was reduced
> by 27% (p=0.05), acute coronary events by 36%, coronary
> revascularisation by 31% and stroke by 48%'. That was for a cohort of
> 2383 T2 diabetics in the age range 40 - 75, with no previous heart
> trouble, and average or lower cholesterol levels. Those are pretty
> significant benefits, and cannot be dismissed lightly.
>
> The only possibility is that the results have been shown to be invalid
> when a very much larger cohort has been studied, rather like the
> omega-3 fish oil supplements situation that Gys alerted us to, a few
> weeks ago.

What we get into over and over again in these discussions is the
desire of human beings to simplify the complex into uselessness.

For example, "...total mortality was reduced by..." In a word,
"what are the other factors?"

Something about correlation and causation?

I don't question the good intentions of the folks trying to get
a handle on improving longevity, especially among the weaker
specimens of humanity, that being us. But rather a lot of things
go into low cholesterol numbers, and there have to be better
ways than using a brute force method of side-effect ridden drugs
in the statin family. What are the other characteristics of
people with nice low cholesterol numbers? What does the rest
of the chem profile look like and how do they achieve it?

Trust in this thought. It isn't exclusively in food and
lifestyle, but what does it entail?

[mainframetech]

On May 22, 10:32 pm, randyf <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> mainframetech wrote:
> >   I think the question is whether the studies in question were on the
> > up and up.  It's too easy for the industry to manipulate the studies
> > and the articles stemming from them.
>
> Here we go again. That's a question that only you and a few outliers
> (on ASD) consider relevant on the particular issue.
>

So you don't think that the veracity of a study is of importance? I
tend to believe you, though not caring much how truthful a study is
might one day affect someone's life. As well, if you have the time
among your lookups of studies, check into Google and see how many time
major drug corporations have manipulated studies and been fined. And
that's only the times they were caught! Thinking about it, I can
believe you care little whether a study is honest.

> Also the UK studies (I think) were not industry sponsored. The
> government wanted to know if this stuff worked. If so it saves them
> money.In fact, in the UK (unless this has changed) you can buy statins
> Over the Counter without a script.
>

Sadly, I have to tell you that major corporations have caused groups
to be started or joined groups outside of medical organizations where
it would suit their goals.

> You can do the same thing in the US at health food stores with
> something called Red Rice Yeast. Contains a natural statin.
>

Yep.

> mainframetech wrote:
> >Remember, the FDA has said that
> > one of the side effects of statins is diabetes.  It's difficult for me
> > to think that statins can cause diabetes and in the same breath help
> > it.
>
> The data that Chris reported Didn't say statins were helpful for
> treating diabetes.
> What he pointed out was the statin reduce heart attackes and mortality
> in diabetics.
>
> Also if you would take the time to look at the data, you would see
> that the number of  new diabetes case associated with statins was
> much, much lower than the deaths and heart attacks prevented.
>
> Randy

Sadly, we don't know how many people's lives(or deaths) the drug
companies have ignored while knowing they are selling a dangerous drug
like Vioxx or Celebrex. Obviously with the rampant disregard for
truth that has been showing itself in fines made against major drug
corporations, we must not take randyf's path and care little for the
veracity of the studies that are one of the main advertising methods
used, along with articles drawn from those studies.

I recommend caution is accepting studies, especially where it is
obvious that the drug industry would profit from people believing the
study results. While sometimes they are honest, it's difficult to
tell and the effort to force more truth in the studies is going to
take a long time before it is accepted. The researchers know
themselves that the studies and journals are going too far into
support for the drug industry an are trying to get things straightened
out and back to a semblance of science, but it's tough going.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/cleaning-up-science.html

Putting "drug company fines" into Google will get you an endless
list of companies that have gone where they wanted and ignored the
law, endangering many.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 22, 10:40 pm, randyf <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> mainframetech wrote:
> >    Now a number of studies are showing that statins don't do much of
> > anything good for people, and the information is being spread by some
> > courageous doctors for years now that cholesterol is important to the
> > human body and cutting it down may have unforeseen results.
>

http://spacedoc.com/http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htmhttp://www....

Nope. Not nearly enough said. Here's a quote from an ABC News
story:

"Now, however, researchers behind a new review that takes a second
look at the findings of the landmark [Jupiter] study say that these
results are flawed -- and that they do not support the benefits
initially reported."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HeartHealth/cholesterol-busting-statins-study-raises-concerns/story?id=11037926#.UZ409-LD-1s

It's a mistake to rely totally on studies, especially industry
sponsored ones. While there are some that are on the level, we should
include other input to make our drug or supplement decisions. Reading
a popular study alone only puts us at risk. It's our life, caution
and care are mandated...:)

Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine
commented, “All of this makes a mockery of the traditional role of
researchers as independent and impartial scientists.”

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 23, 4:36 am, Chris Hogg <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:09:27 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

>
>
> <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >  I think the question is whether the studies in question were on the
> >up and up.  It's too easy for the industry to manipulate the studies
> >and the articles stemming from them.  Remember, the FDA has said that
> >one of the side effects of statins is diabetes.  It's difficult for me
> >to think that statins can cause diabetes and in the same breath help
> >it.
>
> >  One way I think about it is if you don't get enough vitamin C you
> >get scurvy.  If you don't get enough vitamin D you get rickets.  What
> >do you get if you don't get enough cholesterol?  Cholesterol is used
> >in many critical places.  Each of us has a level that we should not go
> >below for these various elements we need.  But we don't know our low
> >level of cholesterol where it becomes dangerous to lower it past.
> >  Cholesterol is used by the body in many ways.  Some critical.  One
> >of the most important uses is in the nervous system.  That may be
> >related to the 'memory loss' that the FDA finally announced with
> >statins.

> >http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/ch...

>
> >  So far I'm just speaking of anyone, but most of the same problems
> >fall onto diabetics too.
>
> >   If you're considering them now, even though they do nothing
> >beneficial for you, I urge you to look into what the doctors say that
> >are against doing any lowering of cholesterol.
>
> >http://spacedoc.com/
> >http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
> >http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/15/great-cholesterol-myth/
>
> >Chris
>

> I don't doubt for a moment that a few people get side effects from
> statins; my mother did, for example. For some, those side effects can
> be serious. But a few people get side effects from almost every drug.
> I also don't doubt that big pharma can _on_rare_occasion_, manipulate
> results of a study to present those results in their favour. But to
> suggest that all studies in which big pharma is directly or indirectly
> involved are biased or distorted is cynical beyond reason.
>
> But you haven't addressed my point, that statins have been shown to
> have a major impact on the occurrence of heart attack and stroke in
> diabetic patients. Forget lipids; forget cholesterol. They may have
> nothing to do with that outcome, which was that statins save lives.
> The mechanism may be in dispute, but you can't ignore the outcome.
>
> See
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12114036?dopt=Abstract
> and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15707477
>
> Nor did you answer my last question, have these conclusions (_for_

> diabetics_) been superceded in the intervening years?
>
When I said I was looking at all patients, it included diabetics. I
didn't select them out as a separate group. They are susceptible to
the same problems as regular patients, and then some. I'm not going
to quibble with the studies you show, because they may or may not be
on the level. When I go to other sources for cholesterol information
I get differnet results than those studies, and my choice is to go
with that information. I trust it to a greater degree. But you have
to make your own decisions on that.
> --
>
There is no way that I would say that ALL or even MOST studies are
swayed by Big Pharma. The problem is that there have been so many
times that they have been fined for manipulating results, that it's
hard to tell which ones are honest and which aren't. When you search
out "drug industry fines", it's an endless list. That means to me
that they can't be trusted. They have no other goal other than profit
for the investors, no matter how they do customer service.

I don't think that studies should be thrown out. I just think they
need to be looked at with a jaundiced eye, and we should look to add
to our knowledge from other areas. There is usually an organization
or a doctor specializing in the specific problem we're interested in,
and we can get a different view from them, adding to our fund of
knowledge and helping any decisions. But just letting ourselves be
'owned' by studies and pop culture articles that often come from the
studies, might be a mistake as I see it.

I don't want to tell folks what to do, just ask them to look into
what they're choosing for themselves. See the other side of an issue,
it's our health, after all, and a mistake can be final.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 23, 6:00 am, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@frontier.com> wrote:
> "Chris Hogg" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e8irp8d1c8a93esnd...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:09:27 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech
> > <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>  I think the question is whether the studies in question were on the
> >>up and up.  It's too easy for the industry to manipulate the studies
> >>and the articles stemming from them.  Remember, the FDA has said that
> >>one of the side effects of statins is diabetes.  It's difficult for me
> >>to think that statins can cause diabetes and in the same breath help
> >>it.
>
> >>  One way I think about it is if you don't get enough vitamin C you
> >>get scurvy.  If you don't get enough vitamin D you get rickets.  What
> >>do you get if you don't get enough cholesterol?  Cholesterol is used
> >>in many critical places.  Each of us has a level that we should not go
> >>below for these various elements we need.  But we don't know our low
> >>level of cholesterol where it becomes dangerous to lower it past.
> >>  Cholesterol is used by the body in many ways.  Some critical.  One
> >>of the most important uses is in the nervous system.  That may be
> >>related to the 'memory loss' that the FDA finally announced with
> >>statins.

> >>http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/ch...

>
> >>  So far I'm just speaking of anyone, but most of the same problems
> >>fall onto diabetics too.
>
> >>   If you're considering them now, even though they do nothing
> >>beneficial for you, I urge you to look into what the doctors say that
> >>are against doing any lowering of cholesterol.
>
> >>http://spacedoc.com/
> >>http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
> >>http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/15/great-cholesterol-myth/
>
> >>Chris
>
> > I don't doubt for a moment that a few people get side effects from
> > statins; my mother did, for example. For some, those side effects can
> > be serious. But a few people get side effects from almost every drug.
> > I also don't doubt that big pharma can _on_rare_occasion_, manipulate
> > results of a study to present those results in their favour. But to
> > suggest that all studies in which big pharma is directly or indirectly
> > involved are biased or distorted is cynical beyond reason.
>
> > But you haven't addressed my point, that statins have been shown to
> > have a major impact on the occurrence of heart attack and stroke in
> > diabetic patients. Forget lipids; forget cholesterol. They may have
> > nothing to do with that outcome, which was that statins save lives.
> > The mechanism may be in dispute, but you can't ignore the outcome.
>

> > Seehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12114036?dopt=Abstract

> > and
> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15707477
>
> > Nor did you answer my last question, have these conclusions (_for_
> > diabetics_) been superceded in the intervening years?
>

To address your points, The benefits you speak of about statins
reducing heart attacks and such is information that cam from studies,
of which you quoted 2. My alternate sources tell me that the studies
are not being honest with you, and I shouldn't have any faith in
them.

> Must disagree with you there.  They have *only* been shown to help men of a
> certain age who have already had a heart attack.  Got no links for ya but
> those links have been posted here time and again.

I'm sure that the billions of dollars of profit these corporations
make can be used to afford as many studies as they want, and as much
support from charitable organizations, and to pay off their fines when
they do as they please. Any company that acts like that has a strike
against it in the 'trust' area. One of the things I think a out is
that we need cholesterol to a great degree for almost every important
function in our bodies. What happens when we get our cholesterol so
low that we go beyond our individual level of safety? And how do we
find out what that level is?

As to recent changes that might impact diabetics, It brings to mind
the FDA announcement that diabetes is now added as a 'side effect' to
statin use. But statins have been around for decades, so how many
diabetics have been made by statins that are walking around now having
to test all the time, watching their diet and so on. Having to
consider all the more harmful losses that might occur at some point.
But no one in authority has suggested that statins be stopped
immediately. The hell with the people that get a side effect. The
benefit for some of us outweighs the risk for a few others. The hell
with them. Tough luck.

Sorry, my knowledge is that statins are dangerous and do nothing for
us but make grief and cost money, and I have a hard time thinking of
all the damage they are doing, so I run off at the keyboard.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 23, 6:51 am, Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 1:36 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:09:27 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech
> > <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>   I think the question is whether the studies in question were on the
> >> up and up.  It's too easy for the industry to manipulate the studies
> >> and the articles stemming from them.  Remember, the FDA has said that
> >> one of the side effects of statins is diabetes.  It's difficult for me
> >> to think that statins can cause diabetes and in the same breath help
> >> it.
>
> >>   One way I think about it is if you don't get enough vitamin C you
> >> get scurvy.  If you don't get enough vitamin D you get rickets.  What
> >> do you get if you don't get enough cholesterol?  Cholesterol is used
> >> in many critical places.  Each of us has a level that we should not go
> >> below for these various elements we need.  But we don't know our low
> >> level of cholesterol where it becomes dangerous to lower it past.
> >>   Cholesterol is used by the body in many ways.  Some critical.  One
> >> of the most important uses is in the nervous system.  That may be
> >> related to the 'memory loss' that the FDA finally announced with
> >> statins.

> >>http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/ch...

>
> >>   So far I'm just speaking of anyone, but most of the same problems
> >> fall onto diabetics too.
>
> >>    If you're considering them now, even though they do nothing
> >> beneficial for you, I urge you to look into what the doctors say that
> >> are against doing any lowering of cholesterol.
>
> >>http://spacedoc.com/
> >>http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
> >>http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/15/great-cholesterol-myth/
>
> >> Chris
>
> > I don't doubt for a moment that a few people get side effects from
> > statins; my mother did, for example. For some, those side effects can
> > be serious. But a few people get side effects from almost every drug.
> > I also don't doubt that big pharma can _on_rare_occasion_, manipulate
> > results of a study to present those results in their favour. But to
> > suggest that all studies in which big pharma is directly or indirectly
> > involved are biased or distorted is cynical beyond reason.
>
> > But you haven't addressed my point, that statins have been shown to
> > have a major impact on the occurrence of heart attack and stroke in
> > diabetic patients. Forget lipids; forget cholesterol. They may have
> > nothing to do with that outcome, which was that statins save lives.
> > The mechanism may be in dispute, but you can't ignore the outcome.
>

> > Seehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12114036?dopt=Abstract

> > and
> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15707477
>
> > Nor did you answer my last question, have these conclusions (_for_
> > diabetics_) been superceded in the intervening years?
>
> Did you know that
> SUPERPARANOID CONSPIRACY NUT Chris
> has posted
> 988 times to
> alt.assassination.jfk
> since December 2012
> and
> 1149 times to
> alt.conspiracy.jfk
> since May 2011
>
> http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

Ah, You again! I knew I shouldn't have turned over that
rock...:)

So who did you hate while you were off my case for a few days?

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 23, 8:56 am, Chris Hogg <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 05:00:23 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> I'm not talking about the benefits of lowering cholesterol as such,
> nor am I talking about the population in general, where your comments
> may apply. I'm talking about the actual observed reduction in the
> incidence of death from CV and/or stroke events specifically for
> diabetics when taking statins, mechanism uncertain. The CARDS study
> showed that, amongst other things, quote 'total mortality was reduced
> by 27% (p=0.05), acute coronary events by 36%, coronary
> revascularisation by 31% and stroke by 48%'. That was for a cohort of
> 2383 T2 diabetics in the age range 40 - 75, with no previous heart
> trouble, and average or lower cholesterol levels. Those are pretty
> significant benefits, and cannot be dismissed lightly.
>
> The only possibility is that the results have been shown to be invalid
> when a very much larger cohort has been studied, rather like the
> omega-3 fish oil supplements situation that Gys alerted us to, a few
> weeks ago.
>

> --
>
> Chris
>
> T2 DX'd 2002, D&E, HbA1c 5.9, BMI 21
> Lipids:Tot 5.2 HDL 1.6 LDL 3.2 Tri 0.8

The trouble is that we don't know whether there were good results,
since some studies are manipulated. But which ones? I would suggest
it's the ones that will sell the most drugs, but that isn't a hard and
fast rule.

Chris.

[bj]

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> When I said I was looking at all patients, it included diabetics. I
> didn't select them out as a separate group. They are susceptible to
> the same problems as regular patients, and then some. I'm not going
> to quibble with the studies you show, because they may or may not be
> on the level. When I go to other sources for cholesterol information
> I get differnet results than those studies, and my choice is to go
> with that information. I trust it to a greater degree. But you have
> to make your own decisions on that.
>

> Chris

No matter what the topic, you can just about always find a study that gives
the results you want to hear and supports the decision you already want to
make.
bj

[Oldmilret]

My wife takes Celebrex and the government pays for it.
Does that make the tax payers co-conspirators?

[Oldmilret]

"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
entries very similar to the 12 already displayed."

12?

[Susan]

x-no-archive :yes

On 5/23/2013 3:53 PM, Oldmilret wrote:

> My wife takes Celebrex and the government pays for it.
> Does that make the tax payers co-conspirators?
>

No, it makes the government an open wallet due to lobby dollars lavished
on legislators by drug companies.

Susan

[Cheri]

"Susan" <su...@nothanks.org> wrote in message

news:b07cgl...@mid.individual.net...

Good answer. :-)

Cheri

[outsider]

On 5/23/2013 2:53 PM, Oldmilret wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:10:17 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech
> <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Sadly, we don't know how many people's lives(or deaths) the drug
>> companies have ignored while knowing they are selling a dangerous drug
>> like Vioxx or Celebrex.
>
> My wife takes Celebrex and the government pays for it.
> Does that make the tax payers co-conspirators?

Air and water can be "dangerous." We all participate in
accepting all the risks of living. Loonies like mainframetech
like to make believe that except for some <target-of-the-day>
life is perfect.

People like me accept that by definition life is perfect.
There's a worldview that holds that we're here merely as
slaves to our DNA. I guess lunacy is part of that deal,
more for some than others.

[mainframetech]

On May 23, 1:59 pm, Chris Hogg <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:10:43 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

>
> <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > To address your points, The benefits you speak of about statins

> >reducing heart attacks and such is information that came from studies,

> >of which you quoted 2.  My alternate sources tell me that the studies
> >are not being honest with you, and I shouldn't have any faith in
> >them.
>

> Can you supply authoritative links?

>
> --
>
> Chris
>
> T2 DX'd 2002, D&E, HbA1c 5.9, BMI 21
> Lipids:Tot 5.2 HDL 1.6 LDL 3.2 Tri 0.8

The simplest links I have already mentioned, but they may not have
made an impression. I mentioned going to Google and putting in "drug
industry fines" because it will show you that most all of the large
drug corporations are all manipulating studies, ignoring safety limits
and generally doing as they wish regardless of regulations. They get
fiend regularly and they pay the fines and keep doing the same thing.
That tells me that they can't be trusted to look after the customers
for their products, because they have not bothered about them in all
this time they have been making drugs that can kill and ignoring those
effects to sell more.

I can give you links to doctors that disagree with the studies, and
sometimes that find problems with the studies, but they mostly have
their own viewpoint on things like statins, cholesterol and other
unrelated subjects. When randyf put out his Jupiter study showing
great rsults from statins, in that study, I used an article in the
Weston Price database that mentioned various doctors, one of whom ran
down the study, and I them found an article speaking of the flaws in
the study. So it's not a one-for-one thing. he doctors that disagree
with the studies can say what they find but can't run studies because
of the cost.

Here are some of them:

http://spacedoc.com/

This site is run by Duane Graveline, MD. He was on the astronaut
list at one time. He had memory loss from taking Lipitor, and he
stopped and his memory came back. A year later his physician talked
him into taking them again, and he began the memory loss again. He
stopped the statins and looked into it on his own and wrote a book
called "Lipitor: Thief of Memory" which was published in 2001.
Remember that the FDA took until 2012 to announce that memory loss was
a side effect of statins!! The website he runs invites any doctor to
post their essays or articles, on the main subjects of cholesterol and
statin use. Also that brings in heart related problems.

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

This site is run by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD and international
author. His curriculum Vitae is here:
http://www.ravnskov.nu/uffe.htm

He has spoken out against lowering cholesterol for many years. He
is an expert in that area. He has made it clear that cholesterol is
of absolute necessity for our functioning and lowering it is a
terrible mistake for all but a tiny percent of people that may have a
problem regulating their cholesterol. Her has been involved in some
studies that show the opposite of major studies suggesting the taking
of statins. There is much to learn on his site.

http://www.mercola.com/

This doctor is Joseph Mercola, MD he has gone mostly commercial,
but his site puts out articles daily and there is quite a large
archive of them that can be accessed. His viewpoint is mostly
alternate medicine and he will put out many articles on replacing
drugs with natural foods or supplements. Topics are:
Diabetes articles
Statin Side Effects
Heart Disease
•Aspartame
•Cancer
•Fitness
•Fluoride
•Fructose/Sugar
•GMO
•Mercury
•Nutritional Typing
•Pets
•Vaccines
•Vitamin D

You simply put in 'mercola' and a subject in medicine,. and you will
get a list of articles that he keeps filed and available on all
subjects.

http://www.gaps.me/preview/?page_id=35

Dr. Natasha Campbell–McBride, MD, MMedSci (neurology), MMedSci
(human nutrition) runs this site and talks about her work with the gut
microbiota. She has found years ago that the gut and its inhabitants
have large effects on out bodies when they go wrong. She has found in
some cases of Autism that antibiotics have cleaned out the gut and baf
bactiria have started up and made a home in the gut, later sending
toxins through the system to the brain and inhibiting some of the
growth needed at young ages causing autism symptoms. The doctor had
corrected some of these cases by clearing the gut and getting good
bacteria going. She speaks about her work ands sells her book on
GAPS, Gut And Psychological Syndrome.

http://www.gaps.me/


These are a starter group. But there are many groups that
specialize in any subject you're interested in and can gice you their
viewpoints to make it easier to make decisions.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 23, 3:07 pm, bj <address...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Yes, and probably find warring studies where they will reinterpret
the same information, but differently. We really are forced onto our
own devices in choosing our healthcare.

Chris

[mainframetech]

> >Obviously with the rampant disregard for
> >truth that has been showing itself in fines made against major drug
> >corporations, we must not take randyf's path and care little for the
> >veracity of the studies that are one of the main advertising methods
> >used, along with articles drawn from those studies.
>
> >   I recommend caution is accepting studies, especially where it is
> >obvious that the drug industry would profit from people believing the
> >study results.  While sometimes they are honest, it's difficult to
> >tell and the effort to force more truth in the studies is going to
> >take a long time before it is accepted.  The researchers know
> >themselves that the studies and journals are going too far into
> >support for the drug industry an are trying to get things straightened
> >out and back to a semblance of science, but it's tough going.

> >http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/cleaning-up-sc...

>
> >  Putting "drug company fines" into Google will get you an endless
> >list of companies that have gone where they wanted and ignored the
> >law, endangering many.

> My wife takes Celebrex and the government pays for it.
> Does that make the tax payers co-conspirators?

As long as you know the story on Celebrex and that it can double
the chances of heart events, that's up to you and her. That's an
interesting point you made. I think we would have to separate the
taxpayers into groups: A- the ones that know nothing about Celebrex
and happily pay their taxes. Ignorance is bliss. B- taxpayers that
are suspicious of what the government is doing with their money, maybe
sending drones to bomb someone. C- People that think there is a
movement afoot to do away with a large percentage of the human race to
leave room for play and entertainment and resources for the wealthy.
D- Many who know what you know and wonder what's the way out of being
a co-conspirator? :)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Did you put quotes around the phrase? Removing them will get a
larger haul. I also used 'drug company fines' and got quite a large
number too.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yep. Would that we each had a mirror that told the truth...:)

Water and air are well known and their treachery we're able to
handle. One of my hopes is that certain drugs will also become so
well known that it will lower the rate of injury and death from them
just like water and air.

Chris
Chris

[Don Roberto]

Please note that
CONSPIRACY NUT
mainfr...@yahoo.com

has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

>> Crestor� treatment resulted in 44% reduction in nonfatal heart attack,

>> nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina,
>> revascularization (bypass surgery, stents) and death from
>> cardiovascular causes. The reduction in nonfatal heart attack was most
>> marked at 55%.
>> //**************************
>>
>> Nough said.
>>
>> Randy
>
> Nope. Not nearly enough said. Here's a quote from an ABC News
> story:
>
> "Now, however, researchers behind a new review that takes a second
> look at the findings of the landmark [Jupiter] study say that these
> results are flawed -- and that they do not support the benefits
> initially reported."
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HeartHealth/cholesterol-busting-statins-study-raises-concerns/story?id=11037926#.UZ409-LD-1s
>
> It's a mistake to rely totally on studies, especially industry
> sponsored ones. While there are some that are on the level, we should
> include other input to make our drug or supplement decisions. Reading
> a popular study alone only puts us at risk. It's our life, caution
> and care are mandated...:)
>
> Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine

> commented, �All of this makes a mockery of the traditional role of
> researchers as independent and impartial scientists.�
>
> Chris
>
>

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com
please keep in mind that he has posted

988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com
please keep in mind that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com
please keep in mind that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Don Roberto]

Yep, me again.
Just reminding the good people here who and what you are

I knew I shouldn't have turned over that
> rock...:)
>
> So who did you hate while you were off my case for a few days?
>

Don't be silly.
I don't hate you, but I DO pity you.

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com

please keep in mind that he has posted

988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND

that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

> �Aspartame
> �Cancer
> �Fitness
> �Fluoride
> �Fructose/Sugar
> �GMO
> �Mercury
> �Nutritional Typing
> �Pets
> �Vaccines
> �Vitamin D

>
> You simply put in 'mercola' and a subject in medicine,. and you will
> get a list of articles that he keeps filed and available on all
> subjects.
>
> http://www.gaps.me/preview/?page_id=35
>

> Dr. Natasha Campbell�McBride, MD, MMedSci (neurology), MMedSci

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
since December 2012
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Opple0p�ad]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:14:07 -0500, outsider
<outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

>There's a worldview that holds that we're here merely as
>slaves to our DNA.

That's a first.

[Julie Bove]

"Chris Hogg" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:l3msp8pe72kn4rjd1...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:10:43 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech
> <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> To address your points, The benefits you speak of about statins

>>reducing heart attacks and such is information that cam from studies,

>>of which you quoted 2. My alternate sources tell me that the studies
>>are not being honest with you, and I shouldn't have any faith in
>>them.
>>
> Can you supply authoritative links?

Links are posted here all the time.

[Opple0p�ad]

So you are saying you can't provide them.

[randyf]

Oldmilret wrote:
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
entries very similar to the 12 already displayed."
"12?"

I think the 12 studies refer to research that shows statins have
little benefit to folks that don't have heart problems or are at
increased risk. Statin benefits are much stronger and consistent with
pre-existing issues. Don't do much for other folks. This is the
accepted *medical/establishment view.

Contrary to mainframetech's claim, this shows that the research
findings are limiting statin profits. If big pharma was out to
maximize profits by any means they would manipulate the data to show
they helped all folks, not just sick ones. Big pharma could then sell
statins to everybody and quintuple++ their profits. BUT- That's not
the way it went down.

Randy

[GysdeJongh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

The Selfish Gene is a book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in
1976. It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book
Adaptation and Natural Selection. Dawkins used the term "selfish gene" as a
way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views
focused on the organism and the group, popularizing ideas developed during
the 1960s by W. D. Hamilton and others. From the gene-centred view follows
that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at
the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each
other. Therefore the concept is especially good at explaining many forms of
altruism, regardless of a common misuse of the term along the lines of a
selfishness gene.

[outsider]

On 5/24/2013 3:47 AM, GysdeJongh wrote:

Dawkins is, like him or not, an interesting author. The selfishness
and selflessness themes receive a good bit of play in many of the
wildlife stories shown on TV these days in the US. You can probably
see many in other countries as well, funded by National Geographic.

I dropped the ball, Gys, thanks for helping out.

[outsider]

On 5/24/2013 4:20 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:
> Thank you for all that. I'm familiar with Ravnskov, and had his book
> for a while. IIRC he was one of the early opponents of the
> sat.fat-cholesterol-heart disease arguments. I find his arguments, and
> those of others who agree with him, quite plausible. If cholesterol is
> not responsible for heart disease (and ischemic stroke), and is
> actually an essential component in body metabolism, then there's no
> point in taking medication (i.e. statins) to reduce it, especially if
> that medication has side effects, some of which may have serious
> consequences, even if they are rare. I accept that.

I am troubled by the construct, "If cholesterol is not responsible
for heart disease (and ischemic stroke), and is actually an
essential component in body metabolism..."

Here's the problem. Cholesterol *can be* responsible for coronary
artery disease that *can* result in heart disease. But cholesterol
is also used by the body in healthy modes. One example is the
repaving of the circulatory system to keep the blood flowing
smoothly and to reduce clotting at rough patches caused by injury
or things like smoking. Continued smoking builds up other plaques
that are paved over by cholesterol, that when some tipping point
is reached, creates a narrowed place for clotting, possibly
resulting in a stroke or heart attack.

> But I'm not concerned about cholesterol. My figures are generally not
> bad, and the various ratios are quite good. But I keep coming back to
> the CARDS study, the second of the two I referred to, where they
> showed that in a double-blind trial of T2 diabetics who did not have
> elevated cholesterol levels (much like me), heart attacks, strokes and
> the need for heart bypass surgery were significantly reduced for the
> cohort on statins.

Ever smoke? Ever lived in a second hand smoke environment? How about
other "pollutants?" There are too many variables involved that don't
actually allow one to dismiss cholesterol. The key expression above
is "tipping point." We never know in advance when that is about to
be achieved. It almost always comes as a surprise.

I am in my "golden years," my 70's. No, my overall health hasn't been
all that great. I could be ready to accept the blame for my conditions
because I smoked, and smoked a lot. OTOH my relatives who never smoked
or did anything bad are in a very similar state, though I am sporting
the only bypass in the family so far. My mother died at age 93 of
Alzheimer's, never smoked and had her glass or 2 of wine some years of
her life, none at all the rest of her life. She died with a pacemaker,
and I don't have one, probably never will.

For most folks, a stress test will give you a pretty good indication
of how cholesterol, and other nasties, are treating you, But bear
in mind that all tests have errors built into them as well.

[randyf]

On May 24, 4:20 am, Chris Hogg <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Thank you for all that. I'm familiar with Ravnskov, and had his book
> for a while. IIRC he was one of the early opponents of the
> sat.fat-cholesterol-heart disease arguments. I find his arguments, and
> those of others who agree with him, quite plausible. If cholesterol is
> not responsible for heart disease (and ischemic stroke), and is
> actually an essential component in body metabolism, then there's no
> point in taking medication (i.e. statins) to reduce it, especially if
> that medication has side effects, some of which may have serious
> consequences, even if they are rare. I accept that.
>

> But I'm not concerned about cholesterol. My figures are generally not
> bad, and the various ratios are quite good. But I keep coming back to
> the CARDS study, the second of the two I referred to, where they
> showed that in a double-blind trial of T2 diabetics who did not have
> elevated cholesterol levels (much like me), heart attacks, strokes and
> the need for heart bypass surgery were significantly reduced for the
> cohort on statins.
>

> The trial was carried out jointly by the charity Diabetes UK, the UK
> Department of Health and Pfizer UK. I take on board your reservations
> about big pharma distorting or misrepresenting results of research for
> their own benefit, but that doesn't mean that everything they do is
> dishonest or tainted.  The benefits of the CARDS trial were so
> remarkable that I can't really believe that Pfizer cooked them,
> especially as they support the results of the earlier study I
> mentioned, which didn't seem to have any direct commercial
> involvement.  An alternative explanation that I've seen for the
> apparent benefits of statins on CVD etc. (assuming there are any) is
> that they reduce inflammation, and that reduction in cholesterol is a
> collateral effect.
>
> I thought you might have had a link to an authoritative, peer-reviewed
> research paper criticizing the CARDS study, for example on the basis
> of it's experimental design, or interpretation of the results. I will
> carry on looking for recent references to it, to see if there are
> criticisms, or if there is supporting evidence. I haven't yet had time
> to look at the JUPITER study referred to by Randy, although the Wiki
> item on it has some interesting comments and references (Randy, do you
> have a link to Dr. William Davies' comments, to save me searching?).
> All this before I make any decisions, but my personal and family
> circumstances have changed significantly over the last six months, and
> taking statins, with all their potential drawbacks, may be the most
> acceptable way to go, if not ideal.

>
> --
>
> Chris
>
> T2 DX'd 2002, D&E, HbA1c 5.9, BMI 21
> Lipids:Tot 5.2 HDL 1.6 LDL 3.2 Tri 0.8

Hey Chris,

Here's the link to Dr. Davis:
http://www.healthcentral.com/cholesterol/c/7986/48507/jupiter-crestor/

Here's a very good piece by Cordain (the father of the modern paleo
movement) making a strong case that what are considered "normal"
cholesterol levels are way too high.
Recommended:
Optimal Low-Density Lipoprotein Is 50 to 70 mg/dl
Lower Is Better and Physiologically Normal
http://thepaleodiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/JACC-LDL-Final.pdf

Finally if your really interested in the scientific basis of the
"lipid theory" and skeptical of naive refutations, I Highly recommend
the following series.
These were written by Daniel Steinberg, As a young scientiest he was
at ground zero when there was alot of effort trying to figure out what
was at the bottom of the heart disease epidemic in the late 40's. The
series starts off in Russia in the 1870s and continues to the early
90s.

Highly recommended for any one that really wants to know the basis of
the *lipid theory* and enjoys history of science retropsectives.
http://www.jlr.org/content/45/9/1583.full
http://www.jlr.org/content/46/2/179.full
http://www.jlr.org/content/46/10/2037.full
http://www.jlr.org/content/47/1/1.long
http://www.jlr.org/content/47/7/1339.long

Regards
Randy

[mainframetech]

Hmm. Your pity is overflowing into many posts, is there a message
in there somewhere of your anger feelings? Pity doesn't usually
generate so many duplicate posts...:) Or are you simply stuck in an
OCD phase? :)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Note: I did NOT "make a claim", I made a statement coupled with an
article showing that the Jupiter study with all it's wonderful news
about statins was flawed and that the grand information wasn't so
grand. This is an occasional result of some studies where someone
looks at them more closely with an experienced eye and finds problems
with them. Sometimes they even find that a researcher has faked their
data. The list of fines tells us who can't be trusted.

In actuality statins are still number one in people's minds as a
treatment for heart attacks and strokes. The advertising has affected
even the doctors who get a heavier dose of it than the average
person. If someone hears from their doctor that stains are good for
them, then that can easily overpower a study or two that says
otherwise. With billions of dollars in profits, there is no limit to
the number of positive studies that can be generated, along with
articles drawn from them.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 24, 4:47 am, "GysdeJongh" <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl>
wrote:

Seems like that position would be hard to prove. In practice people
(or many animals) can be observed to act selflessly, but in the long
run, it may prove out to be a wise move for self-preservation. We
might see a difference in communal insects like bees and ants though.
Any one of the 'community' will selflessly attack an intruder and
possibly die, but the genes are the same in all members of the
'community' and the attack makes it possible for others to carry on
with those genes. The selfless attack really is protecting the
individual's genes.

There will be (no doubt) loud noises if I say that EVERY instinct we
have comes from preservation of SELF, not community or race or family,
or others. Yet the selfless act of an individual to preserve their
'community' is really fulfilling an unwritten contract that whoever is
in the right position will take the brunt of the attack on the
community and the others will benefit from that act. It's the odds.
In some respects it's similar to a herd of zebra. By joining a herd,
the individual gets 'safety in numbers' and then hopes they aren't the
one picked out to be eaten.

Try and think of an instinct where it doesn't come down to survival
of self. Parents avoid death the only way they can, by procreating
and passing some part of themselves down to survive their death.

Chris

[mainframetech]

There are a number of studies that show no benefit from statins by
lowering cholesterol, but everyone of them is also saying that statins
don't do anything by their 'supposed' ability to lower inflammation
either. Here's an example:

"An analysis by Dr. David Newman in 2010 which drew on large meta-
analyses of statins found that among those with pre-existing heart
disease that took statins for 5 years (1):
◾96% saw no benefit at all
◾1.2% (1 in 83) had their lifespan extended (were saved from a fatal
heart attack)
◾2.6% (1 in 39) were helped by preventing a repeat heart attack
◾0.8% (1 in 125) were helped by preventing a stroke
◾0.6% (1 in 167) were harmed by developing diabetes
◾10% (1 in 10) were harmed by muscle damage"
From: http://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease

The point is that if lowering cholesterol with statins doesn't
help, then the lowering of inflammation with the same statin doesn't
help either! Being me, I'm leery of the industry that shifts from
lowering cholesterol to lowering inflammation with the same pill. If
the cholesterol route doesn't work to better the heart stats, then the
inflammation route failed too. If I see a study like the ones just
above, and then a study like the Jupiter or CARDS studies, I get much
more concerned. It doesn't make sense unless the researchers are
making mistakes or doing things very differently, and that somewhat
invalidates the studies.


Let's see what we have. Here's a study that shows faster advance of
atherosclerosis if more statins are used:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22875226

Seems like the result of that would be more heart events than
less.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Like everyone else, I've heard the cholesterol clogs arteries story
too. But the difference for me is that I've heard the story where
cholesterol doesn't CAUSE the clogging of the artery, but inflammation
does. The cholesterol is only used by the body as part of the healing
process for the artery. If that's true, you don't want to make less
cholesterol in your system, you want it to have all the cholesterol it
needs to do the healing. The answer in that case is to lower the
inflammation, and there are many ways around to do that. But lowering
the cholesterol just leads to more and different problems. Some
bodies can take the onslaught for years and some can't. Like with
anything, we're all different.

Chris

[randyf]

Randy Wrote:
"Contrary to mainframetech's claim, this shows that the research
findings are limiting statin profits. If big pharma was out to
maximize profits by any means they would manipulate the data to show
they helped all folks, not just sick ones. Big pharma could then sell
statins to everybody and quintuple++ their profits. BUT- That's not
the way it went down."

mainframetech responded:

" Note:  I did NOT "make a claim"

reply:
Read read what I what that you are responding to. It had Nothing to do
with the Jupiter study.

Again here's the point I was making:
Big pharma sponsored (and non industry sponsored) research has shown
that statins are much, much less effective in folks that don't have
pre-existing heart issues.
The result of these findings is that a very, very large subset of the
population will not be pushed to take statins. This is inconsistent
with your Continual claim that big pharma will lie, steal and murder
to increase drug sales. This is an example where the results of their
own sponsored research shows limits their profits.

Randy

[W. Baker]

GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:

Look at the social insects as kind of the epitome of thisall have the same
parents and spend their lives working for the success, survival,
agrandizement, good-of, setc of the colony.

Wendy

[randyf]

mainframetech wrote:
>    There are a number of studies that show no benefit from statins by
> lowering cholesterol, but everyone of them is also saying that statins
> don't do anything by their 'supposed' ability to lower inflammation
> either.  Here's an example:
>
> "An analysis by Dr. David Newman in 2010 which drew on large meta-
> analyses of statins found that among those with pre-existing heart
> disease that took statins for 5 years (1):
> ◾96% saw no benefit at all
> ◾1.2% (1 in 83) had their lifespan extended (were saved from a fatal
> heart attack)
> ◾2.6% (1 in 39) were helped by preventing a repeat heart attack
> ◾0.8% (1 in 125) were helped by preventing a stroke
> ◾0.6% (1 in 167) were harmed by developing diabetes
> ◾10% (1 in 10) were harmed by muscle damage"

> From:http://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-i...

Here's what you left out from the article quoted from:
//***********************
"There’s little doubt that statins are effective in reducing heart
attacks and deaths from heart disease in people who already have heart
disease. Several large controlled trials including 4S, CARE, LIPID,
HPS, TNT, MIRACL, PROV-IT and A to Z have shown relative risk
reductions between 7% on the low end in MIRACL and 32% on the high end
in 4S, with an average risk reduction of about 20%."
//************************

mainframetech wrote:
> Let's see what we have.  Here's a study that shows faster advance of
> atherosclerosis if more statins are used:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22875226
> Seems like the result of that would be more heart events than
> less.

Another fine example of a faulty conclusion due to a lack of critical
thinking.

The study found greater Calcium scores in the diabetic folks that were
regularly taking statins compared to diabetics that weren't taking
statins.
If you would have taken the time to read the full study or commentary
on the study you would have learned the following:

1. This was not a controlled trial, but an observational trial of only
197 subjects.
2. The folks taking the statins already had a baseline greater calcium
score and were Sick. That's why they were on statins. People taking
with cancer using chemo will after have greater cancer growth compared
to folks that don't take Chemo and don't have Cancer. Does that mean
that Chemo causes cancer growth.
3. The statin users didn't have more heart issues.
4. The authors of the paper even postulate that the increased calcium
is due to the plaque healing, not a worsening of condition.

Here's a commentary of the study from Medpage with input with one of
the study's authors:

*********************
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ADA/33191

But it would be a "horrible mistake" to infer that strict compliance
with statin use is somehow causally associated with progression of
atherosclerosis, warned Cam Patterson, MD, from the Center for Heart
and Vascular Care at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Patterson, who was not involved in this study, added that such a
conclusion is definitively a false one.

"The patients who were more compliant with statin therapy had much
higher calcium scores at baseline, so these are obviously patients who
had a substantially greater propensity for atherosclerosis to begin
with," Patterson said to MedPage Today.

He suggested that patients who already have vascular disease are more
likely to be compliant with their statins.

Saremi does not disagree with Patterson; the progression of
calcification may be linked to the healing of soft plaque initiated by
statin therapy, she told MedPage Today. "It's important now to
determine whether this progression of calcification leads to
cardiovascular events."

She also suggested that if diabetics are put on statins earlier in the
course of their disease, when their calcium scores are low, there may
not be such a rapid advancement of calcification.

The current analysis included 197 participants with type 2 diabetes
from the Risk Factors, Atherosclerosis, and Clinical Events in
Diabetes (RACED) study, a substudy of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes
Trial (VADT) study.
********************************

[randyf]

On May 24, 4:20 am, Chris Hogg <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Thank you for all that. I'm familiar with Ravnskov, and had his book
> for a while. IIRC he was one of the early opponents of the
> sat.fat-cholesterol-heart disease arguments. I find his arguments, and
> those of others who agree with him, quite plausible. If cholesterol is
> not responsible for heart disease (and ischemic stroke), and is
> actually an essential component in body metabolism, then there's no
> point in taking medication (i.e. statins) to reduce it, especially if
> that medication has side effects, some of which may have serious
> consequences, even if they are rare. I accept that.
>

> But I'm not concerned about cholesterol. My figures are generally not
> bad, and the various ratios are quite good. But I keep coming back to
> the CARDS study, the second of the two I referred to, where they
> showed that in a double-blind trial of T2 diabetics who did not have
> elevated cholesterol levels (much like me), heart attacks, strokes and
> the need for heart bypass surgery were significantly reduced for the
> cohort on statins.
>

Chris,
By virtue of responding to mainframetechs inaccuracies I might sound
as if I'm a cheer leader for statins. I'm not.

In my view the best way to evaluate any treatment (including statins)
is to examine the *Numbers Needed To Treat* (NNT).
This is a new metric that separates *relative benefit* from *absolute
benefit* and is very revealing.

If 50+ folks with your profile were treated with statins for 5 years,
one hear attack might be prevented. When the numbers are stated that
way, statins are not nearly as impressive.

Note: For folks that already have serious disease, the stats become
much worse. Also these numbers decrease with increasing time.

Regards
Randy

[Ozlover]

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 9:26�pm, Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On 5/23/2013 9:11 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On May 23, 6:51 am, Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:

[...]

> > >> Did you know that
> > >> SUPERPARANOID CONSPIRACY NUT Chris
> > >> has posted
> > >> 988 times to
> > >> alt.assassination.jfk
> > >> since December 2012
> > >> and
> > >> 1149 times to
> > >> alt.conspiracy.jfk
> > >> since May 2011
> >
> > >>http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep
> >
> > > � � Ah, �You again!
> >
> > Yep, me again.
> > Just reminding the good people here who and what you are
> >
> > � �I knew I shouldn't have turned over that
> >
> > > rock...:)
> >
> > > � � So who did you hate while you were off my case for a few days?
> >
> > Don't be silly.
> > I don't hate you, but I DO pity you.
>
> Hmm. Your pity is overflowing into many posts, is there a message
> in there somewhere of your anger feelings? Pity doesn't usually
> generate so many duplicate posts...:) Or are you simply stuck in an
> OCD phase? :)

No anger or OCD, you just deserve a *lot* of pity and Don Roberto is
only too happy to oblige. YW.

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 23, 4:00�pm, Oldmilret <oldmil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech
> > <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]
> > > �There is no way that I would say that ALL or even MOST studies are

> > >swayed by Big Pharma. �The problem is that there have been so many
> > >times that they have been fined for manipulating results, that it's
> > >hard to tell which ones are honest and which aren't. When you search
> > >out "drug industry fines", it's an endless list.
> >

> > "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
> > entries very similar to the 12 already displayed."
> >
> > 12?

[...]

> Did you put quotes around the phrase? Removing them will get a
> larger haul. I also used 'drug company fines' and got quite a large
> number too.

You forgot to mention the tin foil hat! Did Chris put it on before
doing the search?

--
Frank Slootweg

[mainframetech]

On May 24, 1:12 pm, randyf <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> Randy Wrote:
> "Contrary to mainframetech's claim, this shows that the research
> findings are limiting statin profits. If big pharma was out to
> maximize profits by any means they would manipulate the data to show
> they helped all folks, not just sick ones. Big pharma could then sell
> statins to everybody and quintuple++ their profits. BUT- That's not
> the way it went down."
>
> mainframetech responded:
> " Note:  I did NOT "make a claim"
>
> reply:
> Read read what I what that you are responding to. It had Nothing to do
> with the Jupiter study.
>

I don't make 'claims'. I make statements or ask questions.
Sometimes I back up what I say if needed. The 'claim' was made that
the Jupiter study proved high results for statins. Later it turned
out the study was flawed and the great statins weren't so great.
BTW, it sounds like you're playing to an audience, rather than
debating a point with me.

> Again here's the point I was making:
> Big pharma sponsored (and non industry sponsored) research has shown
> that statins are much, much less effective in folks that don't have
> pre-existing heart issues.
> The result of these findings is that a very, very large subset of the
> population will not be pushed to take statins. This is inconsistent
> with your Continual claim that big pharma will lie, steal and murder
> to increase drug sales. This is an example where the results of their
> own sponsored research shows limits their profits.
>
> Randy

Sorry, you must not watch the advertising on TV these days. The
ads for statins are going great guns for anyone whether first heart
attack or not. And as long as they keep up the ads, it will keep up
the sales. Your guess about that won't come true.

The flaws in the Jupiter study won't hinder that many people with
all the other inducements going on all the time. As well, you still
have them selling doctors, who more than the public, depend on
studies. They must hold to whatever the 'science' says or suffer the
slings and arrows of their own profession. They've been trained to
stay in the boundaries set by 'science' which means studies, which in
certain cases are controlled by the drug industry. They even get
into the universities and affect the medical training for the doctors
and nurses. And with the grants and charitable contributions they
can afford to make, they can sway almost any group to their
viewpoint. Which leads to profits, the only goal of any corporation.

Chris

[mainframetech]

MFT says:
So you definitely agree that anyone that hasn't had a heart attack
should not bother with statins?

And so he covers his tail, which most studies have done.

> "The patients who were more compliant with statin therapy had much
> higher calcium scores at baseline, so these are obviously patients who
> had a substantially greater propensity for atherosclerosis to begin
> with," Patterson said to MedPage Today.
>
> He suggested that patients who already have vascular disease are more
> likely to be compliant with their statins.
>
> Saremi does not disagree with Patterson; the progression of
> calcification may be linked to the healing of soft plaque initiated by
> statin therapy, she told MedPage Today. "It's important now to
> determine whether this progression of calcification leads to
> cardiovascular events."
>
> She also suggested that if diabetics are put on statins earlier in the
> course of their disease, when their calcium scores are low, there may
> not be such a rapid advancement of calcification.
>
> The current analysis included 197 participants with type 2 diabetes
> from the Risk Factors, Atherosclerosis, and Clinical Events in
> Diabetes (RACED) study, a substudy of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes
> Trial (VADT) study.
> ********************************

All this is arguing studies, which are such that we can't tell which
ones are legitimate and which ones aren't. Your complete dependence
on studies and what they say is a mistake. A study comes out and
everybody runs to get the medicine mentioned in the study that seemed
to help. A few years later the truth comes out as researchers go into
the depths of the study and find out it's flawed or that the medicine
is killing more people than it was thought to beforehand. Such was
the case with Vioxx and Celebrex, but they're not alone in the death
dealing, mostly supported by studies and the articles that are drawn
from them.

The lone doctor that speaks out is barely heard against the tide of
baloney that sounds like 'science' but is simply aiding the
advertising:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/drug-firms-manipulating-trials/2006/08/06/1154802756201.html

Chris

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 24, 4:00 pm, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Ah! We have a pairing! Welcome to the pity party...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 24, 4:05 pm, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Yep. It has wings too! I can fly over you and drop nasty stuff in
your eye like the birds doo...LOL!

Chris

[randyf]

MFT says:
"So you definitely agree that anyone that hasn't had a heart attack
should not bother with statins?"

reply:
I definitely agree that someone that hasn't had a heart attack +
doesn't have other increased risk factor (diabetes is almost
equivalent to having a heart attack) should not take statins.
In fact, until just recently, that was the consensus view of the
established medical community. The same group you are constantly
denouncing.

If you read the 2011 Cochrane review on statins and primary
prevention(folks that haven't had a heart event or increase risk
factors) they came to the same conclusion. No need to take statins.
ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21249663

In the latest review in 2013 this has changed slightly. It now appears
there is a *slight* decrease in major events, even in folks with no
risk factors. About 18 major events can be prevented per 1000 folks
treated for 5 years. Personally 18 our of 1000 in five years does not
impress me on an individual level. On a population level those numbers
add up.
ref: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004816/statins-for-the-primary-prevention-of-cardiovascular-disease

mainframetech writes:
>   All this is arguing studies, which are such that we can't tell which
> ones are legitimate and which ones aren't.

reply:
I can confidently have faith in studies that have shown consistent
results for the last 20 years.
Some sponsored by big pharma and some not.

mainframetech wrote:
"Your complete dependence
on studies and what they say is a mistake.  "

reply:
No, trusting you and space doc and ignoring science - that would be a
mistake, an inexcusable one in this day and age.

mainframetech wrote:
"A study comes out and
everybody runs to get the medicine mentioned in the study that seemed
to help.  A few years later the truth comes out as researchers go
into
the depths of the study and find out it's flawed or that the medicine
is killing more people than it was thought to beforehand.  Such was
the case with Vioxx and Celebrex, but they're not alone in the death
dealing, mostly supported by studies and the articles that are drawn
from them."

reply:
Yes, and the information that exposed the truth about Vioxx and
Celbrex were from the same institutions that you say we can't trust.
The methods of the system you say is not trustworthy is the same
system that exposed truth.

Randy

[Colt T]

I once read that if you take Celebrex for a few days before surgery it
will largely prevent surgical adhesions.

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
in the past 6 months

and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
in the past 6 months
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

[Don Roberto]

Especially you.

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
in the past 6 months
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
in the past 6 months
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

[Trawley Trash]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:17:57 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> Please note that
> CONSPIRACY NUT
> mainfr...@yahoo.com

> has posted
> 988 times to
> alt.assassination.jfk

> since December 2012

> and
> 1149 times to
> alt.conspiracy.jfk
> since May 2011

And this is relevant, because...?

[Don Roberto]

This is relevant because if you can figure out WHY it is relevant you'll
win the most scrumptious, delectable, succulent 20 lb chocolate mousse cake

http://cakespics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Chocolate-Mousse-Cake.jpg

you ever had a chance to wolf down.

[mainframetech]

On May 24, 7:13 pm, randyf <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> MFT says:
> "So you definitely agree that anyone that hasn't had a heart attack
> should not bother with statins?"
>
> reply:
> I definitely agree that someone that hasn't had a heart attack +
> doesn't have other increased risk factor (diabetes is almost
> equivalent to having a heart attack) should not take statins.
> In fact, until just recently, that was the consensus view of the
> established medical community. The same group you are constantly
> denouncing.
>
> If you read the 2011 Cochrane review on statins and primary
> prevention(folks that haven't had a heart event or increase risk
> factors) they came to the same conclusion. No need to take statins.
> ref:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21249663
>

MFT says:
An interesting set of conclusions in that study: "Although
reductions in all-cause mortality, composite endpoints and
revascularizations were found with no excess of adverse events, there
was evidence of selective reporting of outcomes, failure to report
adverse events and inclusion of people with cardiovascular disease.
Only limited evidence showed that primary prevention with statins may
be cost effective and improve patient quality of life. Caution should
be taken in prescribing statins for primary prevention among people at
low cardiovascular risk."

The author found that things were done to sway the results. And
yet they still accepted what was left as honest results. No way to
know if the rest of the information had been messed with. It should
have invalidated the whole thing with that kind of fooling around
occurring.

> In the latest review in 2013 this has changed slightly. It now appears
> there is a *slight* decrease in major events, even in folks with no
> risk factors. About 18 major events can be prevented per 1000 folks
> treated for 5 years. Personally 18 our of 1000 in five years does not
> impress me on an individual level. On a population level those numbers
> add up.

> ref:http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004816/statins-for-the-primary-preven...

>
>  mainframetech writes:
> >   All this is arguing studies, which are such that we can't tell which
> > ones are legitimate and which ones aren't.
>
> reply:
> I can confidently have faith in studies that have shown consistent
> results for the last 20 years.
> Some sponsored by big pharma and some not.
>

MFT replies: I believe you have such confidence even though the
drug industry has been around for more than 20 years, and profitable
during that time. You don't have any information saying that those
corporations were honest for that period, only consistent. And as to
studies sponsored by Big Pharma and some that were not, were you able
to deduce whether they were funded by groups that were begun by Big
Pharma or were beholden to them? They spend much money to gain the
reliance of journals, charitable organizations and others to aid in
their looking legitimate and warm hearted. All these methods have
been shown before.

> mainframetech wrote:
>
> "Your complete dependence
> on studies and what they say is a mistake.  "
>
> reply:
> No, trusting you and space doc and ignoring science - that would be a
> mistake, an inexcusable one in this day and age.
>

MFT replies: Please don't exaggerate just to make a point. You are
fully aware that I don't throw out science, but you know that I will
downplay any effort to misuse science rather than present it and its
results honestly. Manipulation of studies has been shown to occur,
and that is a misuse of science for the purpose of advertising and
promoting drug products (in this case). Supporting such false science
is merely conspiring with the guilty. Where some studies are honest,
the problem is deciding which ones are. I would suggest climbing out
of your 'science' armor because its protection is corroding, and begin
to look into people's goals and motivations along with your love of
'science'.

> mainframetech wrote:
>
> "A study comes out and
>  everybody runs to get the medicine mentioned in the study that seemed
>  to help.  A few years later the truth comes out as researchers go
> into
>  the depths of the study and find out it's flawed or that the medicine
>  is killing more people than it was thought to beforehand.  Such was
>  the case with Vioxx and Celebrex, but they're not alone in the death
>  dealing, mostly supported by studies and the articles that are drawn
>  from them."
>
> reply:
> Yes, and the information that exposed the truth about Vioxx and
> Celbrex were from the same institutions that you say we can't trust.
> The methods of the system you say is not trustworthy is the same
> system that exposed truth.
>
> Randy

I believe you've made yet another mistake by assuming such
corporations were showing their responsibility to humanity by
announcing the problems. Vioxx was a Merck product. They applied for
FDA approval in Nov. 1998 after testing with 5,400 patients. There's
no way they could not have seen the doubling of risk for heart events
in that big a group, but "Merck says rates of cardiovascular risk were
"similar" among patients taking Vioxx, placebo or other pain
relievers."
From: http://www.thestreet.com/story/10195104/1/the-murky-history-of-mercks-vioxx.html

Merck knew from trials that Vioxx doubled the risk of
cardiovascular problems. And that was 1998. How many were injured or
died from then to when the drug was announced as a killer? How long
did Merck get involved in arguments as to where the problem was with
Vioxx and how long until they were forced to withdraw it from the
market? Years went by while Merck took in profits in the billions for
that one product until they were forced to admit the problem was real
and sizable and withdraw the killer. They weren't acting for the good
of anyone. They hung on and sold the killer for as long as they could
and made a tidy profit in the billions before pulling back and trying
to look like humanitarians. randyf, talking about Merck's honesty in
announcing the problem with Vioxx so completely covers up the real
story of how it was finally stopped that you need to go back to your
research and look again.
From: http://www.thestreet.com/story/10195104/1/the-murky-history-of-mercks-vioxx.html

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 24, 7:20 pm, Colt...@webtv.net (Colt T) wrote:
> I once read that if you take Celebrex for a few days before surgery it
> will largely prevent surgical adhesions.

Is that where you get stuck to the operating table?

Chris