900 Studies Show Statin Drugs are Dangerous
NotImportant
900 Studies Show Statin Drugs are Dangerous
statins, statin drugs, muscles, drugs, cholesterol, LDL, HDLA new
paper cites nearly 900 studies on the adverse effects of HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitors, also called statins, which are a class of drugs
widely used to treat high cholesterol. The review provides the most
complete picture to date of reported side effects of statins.
Muscle problems are the best known of statin drugs' adverse side
effects, but cognitive problems and pain or numbness in the
extremities are also widely reported. A spectrum of other problems,
ranging from blood glucose elevations to tendon problems, can also
occur as side effects.
The paper summarizes powerful evidence that statin-induced injury to
the function of the body's energy-producing cells, called
mitochondria, underlies many of the adverse effects that occur to
patients taking statin drugs. Statins lower levels of coenzyme Q10, a
compound central to the processes of making energy within mitochondria
and eliminating dangerous compounds called free radicals.
Higher statin doses and more powerful statins are linked to greater
risk of developing side effects.
Sources:
Eurekalert January 26, 2009
American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs 2008;8(6):373-418
CKSF
But both aspirin and statins are proven to be highly efficacious.
Learn to know risk-benefit before seeing only the extreme negative.
CKSF
ia...@notcox.net
read this:
http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=74037
Ian
Admin
Hmm....risk-benefit analysis. Let's do that. Instead of just seeing
the conclusion you should try to see the bigger picture. Cholesterol
is not the problem.
A long-term, 9.6 year follow up study using Clofibrate by WHO gives us
a very importanat snap-shot of what is really happening. Table 1 given
below documented the deaths due to different causes in both the
treatment and placebo group.
WHO European Primary Prevention Trial with Clofibrate. 9.6-year
follow up
Clofibrate Placebo
5331
Men 5296 Men
Cause of death
CHD
157 138
Stroke
30 19
Other Cardiovascular Diseases 21 16
Cancers
125 99
Other Medical
30 13
Accidents
31 30
Unknown
2 2
All Causes(Total) 396
317
Of course you will argue that this is from a family of old
cholesterol lowering drugs and we now have better drugs such as
statin. Let's really look at what statin had done. This is from
Dr.Ravnskof.
BMJ, 18 June 2002
Prevention is better than cure, but the effect of most
preventive measures is trivial. The relative risk reduction is
therefore highly misleading, as pointed out by Nuovo et al. (1), but
even the absolute risk reduction, or number needed to treat, means
almost nothing to most patients. For this group it is much more
'honest' and effective to provide the figures that represent their
chances of surviving with and without treatment.
To give an impression of the small improvement that is achieved
by commonly used preventive measures I have calculated the chance of
surviving with and without treatment of hypertension, and with and
without treatment of hypercholesterolaemia (table). For hypertension
I have used the figures from a meta-analysis of seventeen controlled,
randomised trials (2). For hypercholesterolaemia I have used the data
from the 4S (3) , as it demonstrated the most favourable outcomes in
patients with established cardiovascular disease, and the data from
the WOSCOPS trial (4) as this trial demonstrated the most favourable
outcome in healthy individuals with high cholesterol. In both trials I
have chosen the figures for total mortality, because I assume that
this is the most relevant figure for most patients, and because no
bias is associated with that outcome. For the hypertension trials
total cardiovascular mortality is the measurement used, because a meta-
analytic calculation of total mortality was not performed.
Table.
Benefits from treatment of
high blood pressure and
of high cholesterol
BP lowering
4S WOSCOPS
Relative risk reduction; % -20
-29 -21
Absolute risk reduction; % -0.8
-3.3 -0.9
Chance of surviving without
treatment; % 96
88.5 90.6
Chance of surviving with
treatment; % 96.8
91.8 91.4
As mentioned, these figures are the most optimistic
available. For instance, in many of the studies that were included in
the meta-analysis on hypertension, total mortality was not reduced
significantly. Further, the results from the most recent secondary
preventive statin trial HPS were only half as good as those from 4S
(5); and total mortality in the first primary preventive statin trial
EXCEL was increased in the treatment group (6). If patients were given
these odds, and then clearly informed about possible side effects from
treatment, I guess that most of them might choose to spend their money
on horse racing.
1.Nuovo J, Melnikow J, Chang D. Reporting Number Needed to Treat and
Absolute Risk Reduction in Randomized Controlled Trials. JAMA
2002;287:2813-4
2.Hebert PR, Moser, M, Mayer J, Hennekens CH. Recent evidence on drug
therapy of mild to moderate hypertension an decreased risk of coronary
heart disease. Arch Int Med 1993;153:578-81.
3.Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with
coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study
(4S) Lancet 1994;344:1383-9.
4.Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, Isles CG, Lorimer AR, Macfarlane PW,
McKillop JH, Packard CJ, for the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention
Study Group. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatine in
men with hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med 1987;333:1301-7.
5.Ravnskov U. Statins as the new Aspirin. Conclusions from the heart
protection study were premature. BMJ 2002;324:789
6.Bradford RH, Shear CL, Chremos AN, Dujovne C, Downton M, Franklin
FA, Gould AL, Hesney M, Higgins J, Hurley DP, et al. Expanded Clinical
Evaluation of Lovastatin (EXCEL) study results. I. Efficacy in
modifying plasma lipoproteins and adverse event profile in 8245
patients with moderate hypercholesterolemia. Arch Intern Med
1991;151:43-9.
Admin
> Mercola is an osteopath and a quack. Try googling mercola and quack, or
> read this:
>
> http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=74037
>
> Ian
>
Please refer to :
A Cheat's Guide to Clinical Trials
by Dr. Ian Scott
Provided by Croft Woodruff
October 13, 2005
http://www.thenhf.com/articles_216.htm
Of course the greatest joke of all been played on unsuspecting
doctors and patients is the following caveat found in all Lipitor's
cholesterol lowering drugs :
**********************************************************
Important information :
LIPITOR (atorvastatin calcium) is a prescription drug used with diet
to
lower cholesterol. LIPITOR is not for everyone, including those with
liver
disease or possible liver problems, women who are nursing, pregnant,
or may become pregnant. LIPITOR has not been shown to prevent heart
disease or heart attacks.
*********************************************************
Notice the last statement !!!! If doctors prescribed this
knowing what it cannot do, would you consider them a quack ? Or one
who warn against its dangers ? You seem to have your priorities all
wrong.....but then again you smelt like a hired gun and that is
perhaps your only priority.
ia...@notcox.net
Yes, you are in thrall to quacks. The entire institution of medical
research is being gulled and fooled, and you and a website know better
than scientists what medical strategies to use against illness. Sure.
One has to retain a healthy scepticism about how useful statins are
going to be. A decent diet, weight control and exercise all paly a part
too. But to put your faith in a bunch of people who stand to profit from
reducing your faith in real medicine is utterly foolish.
I have been corresponding on sct for years, and am no shill, but I
understand your constant need to try to undermine the credibility of
everyone who says that your emperor has no clothes.
Ian
CKSF
willing to have in your conscience advising everyone NOT to take
statins?
Surely you would want to leave it to the doctor and patient.
CKSF
Good Soldier Schweik
wrote:
You appear to be playing games with words.
Lipitor is a specific medicine to lower Cholesterol levels.
A "heart attack" is, by definition,
a condition in which a problem with the structure or function of the
heart impairs its ability to supply sufficient blood flow to meet the
body's needs.[1] It should not be confused with cardiac arrest
Common causes of heart failure include myocardial infarction and other
forms of ischemic heart disease, hypertension, valvular heart disease
and cardiomyopathy.[2] Heart failure can cause a large
Thus no claim that Lipitor prevents "heart attacks" can logically be
made.
Perhaps you will be good enough to provide a chart that correlates the
relationship between high cholesterol levels and heart problems for
the edification of the uninformed.
Cheers,
Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
Admin
> Dude, you are free not to take those meds. More importantly, are you
> willing to have in your conscience advising everyone NOT to take
> statins?
>
> Surely you would want to leave it to the doctor and patient.
>
> CKSF
>
I am not advising everyone NOT to take statins. I was merely
offering information - information that users of statin may not have.
I am sure you would agree that if patients are given all the
information , including those that are damning to the statin drugs it
would have allowed them to make an informed decision.
As modern medicine had became the number one killer (Death by
Medicine, Gary Null et al - http://www.whale.to/a/null9.html) I
believe it is unconscienable that the public are not warned against
the insidious nature of something that we so easily accepted as true
and are unquestionable.
Admin
addr...@signature.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:13:28 -0800 (PST), Admin <chiong...@gmail.com>
I wasn't playing with words. Ask any doctor why they prescribed
cholesterol lowering drugs. If the very reason for prescribing such
drugs had never been proven why continue with the farce ?
So if you do have the proof I think the onus of proof is on
you.
Admin
I am a slave ? I posted this all on my own accord. The reason I
am doing it because I saw how statins literally destroyed my mom's
muscles and a little later a dear friend died of liver failure again
due to statin.
Consider the opinion of a medical doctor, Ron Rosedale,MD in his
paper “Cholesterol is NOT the Cause of Heart Diesease”
“Before we begin to talk about the real cause and effective
treatment for heart and blood vessel disease, we must first look at
what is known, or I should say what we think we know. The first thing
that comes to mind when one hears about heart disease is almost always
cholesterol. Cholesterol and heart disease has been almost synonymous
for the last half-century. Cholesterol has been portrayed as the Darth
Vader to our arteris and our heart.
The latest recommendation given by a so-called panel of 'experts'
recommends that a person's cholesterol be as low as possible, in fact
to a level so low they say it cannot be achieved by diet, exercise, or
any known lifestyle modification. Therefore, they say cholesterol-
lowering drugs; particularly the so-called 'statins' needed to be
given to anyone at high risk of heart disease. Since heart disease is
the number one killer in this country that would include most adults
and even many children. The fact that this might add to the $26
billion in sales of statin drugs last year I'm sure played no role in
their recommendations.
Or did it ?”
-------------------------------
Ron Rosedale,MD went on to expose how eight out of these 9
experts were on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies that
manufacture those drugs.
> One has to retain a healthy scepticism about how useful statins are
> going to be. A decent diet, weight control and exercise all paly a part
> too. But to put your faith in a bunch of people who stand to profit from
> reducing your faith in real medicine is utterly foolish.
>
And how will I benefit from people's reducing faith in real
medicine ?
My motive is to share what I had found after 2 personal
tragedies.
> I have been corresponding on sct for years, and am no shill, but I
> understand your constant need to try to undermine the credibility of
> everyone who says that your emperor has no clothes.
>
> Ian
I don't have an emperor but the huge pharmaceutical industry
certainly has. I think Mike Adams (www.newstarget.com) sums it up
best when he said
-----
The so-called "evidence" supporting conventional medicine and the use
of most pharmaceuticals, it turns out, is almost entirely fictional.
It's as if tens of thousands of people stood around and agreed to
pretend they were conducting real science, pretending to "search for
the cure," pretending to regulate drug companies at the FDA,
pretending to dispense medicine at the local pharmacy and pretending
to be doing it all for the public good. It's all a grand pretending
act -- a great hoax on the American people.
-----
Admin
I am a slave ? I posted this all on my own accord. The reason I
> One has to retain a healthy scepticism about how useful statins are
> going to be. A decent diet, weight control and exercise all paly a part
> too. But to put your faith in a bunch of people who stand to profit from
> reducing your faith in real medicine is utterly foolish.
>
And how will I benefit from people's reducing faith in real
medicine ?
My motive is to share what I had found after 2 personal
tragedies.
> I have been corresponding on sct for years, and am no shill, but I
> understand your constant need to try to undermine the credibility of
> everyone who says that your emperor has no clothes.
>
> Ian
I don't have an emperor but the huge pharmaceutical industry
Good Soldier Schweik
wrote:
>On Feb 23, 2:26 am, CKSF <AGL...@gmail.com> wrote:
So admin, as you appear to recommend not taking statins what do you
recommend for those suffering from high cholesterol and heart
problems? Death?
You do know that the cholesterol in your blood stream is manufactured
by your liver, and not absorbed from what you eat, don't you?
Cheers,
Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
Good Soldier Schweik
wrote:
>On Feb 23, 9:13 am, Good Soldier Schweik <decypher-
The question has been asked and answered many times. It goes like
this:
"If diet and exercise lower cholesterol, as they have been shown to
do, why do doctors prescribe statins?"
"Because, in my experience, if I prescribe substituting a healthy life
for their current unhealthy one my patients don't listen. If I
prescribe a little pill every morning they do listen."
Cheers,
Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
Good Soldier Schweik
wrote:
>On Feb 23, 12:19 am, "i...@notcox.net" <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
Then quite simply your mom (god Rest her) and your friend either
didn't follow the drug company's nor (I hope) their doctor's
recommendation and have a bi-annual liver function test.
So, if these people don't want to take the bother to take the tests
that would have prevented their dying they why do you blame the
medicine?
Again you are playing with words or your references are. Cholesterol
in itself does not cause heart attacks. what it does is plug up
arteries. It is the lack of blood flow through thee plugged arteries
that causes the heart attack.
So, do you say that plugged arteries, which WILL cause a heart attack,
are good?
Cheers,
Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
maxwell
"Good Soldier Schweik" <decypher...@signature.invalid> wrote in message
news:bgj6q4199iim317ou...@4ax.com...
Not quite; it's both, though on average the liver provides about three times
what comes from what is eaten.
Hereditary variations in what *kind* of cholesterol the liver produces are
significant; some livers produce excesses of LDL (bad) cholesterol.
While folks who exercise regularly, avoid tobacco smoking and consume only
moderate amounts of dietary cholesterol (and shun trans fats!) may well have
no problem from LDL excess, fact is that for *some,* even these measures may
not suffice, while the action of statins upon the liver may well do the
trick.
-maxwell
NotImportant
> > I am a slave ? I posted this all on my own accord. The reason I
> >am doing it because I saw how statins literally destroyed my mom's
> >muscles and a little later a dear friend died of liver failure again
> >due to statin.
>
> Then quite simply your mom (god Rest her) and your friend either
> didn't follow the drug company's nor (I hope) their doctor's
> recommendation and have a bi-annual liver function test.
>
Muscle wasting is not related to liver function. She had her
normal blood test and her liver function seem fine.
My friend prior to taking the statin had a blood test a few
months before. His liver seem "normal". His liver failed 3 .... let
me stress.... 3 weeks after he started taking statin for his high
cholesterol. I found an internal memo of FDA which highlighted how
liver failure started increasing when statin was introduced into the
market and a new protocol of liver tasting was introduced. But NOT
ALL will be caught by the liver test.
Again what you seem to be avoiding in all these is that
cholesterol is NOT THE CAUSE OF HEART ATTACK.
In fact statin actually cause CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE due to
Co-Q10 depletion in the heart muscles.
Consider also this fact: in the last 20 years or so , the
incidence of congestive heart failure has tripled(first statin drug,
lovastatin came out in 1987) .This is roughly the time in which statin
had been on the market. If lowering cholesterol were to be protective
of heart diseases why such a huge increase that coincided with the
release of such drugs ?
> So, if these people don't want to take the bother to take the tests
> that would have prevented their dying they why do you blame the
> medicine?
>
Inspite all that I had presented on the controlled studies you
now turn around and blame it on the patient and not on the drug.
Cholesterol as a cause of heart disease was never proven and yet
todate it is accepted as an axiom by almost everyone.
It would be disingenious on your part if you would not or
perhaps could not tell us why do you think taking statin drug is
good ? Answer just this simple question - if you can.
>
> Again you are playing with words or your references are. Cholesterol
> in itself does not cause heart attacks. what it does is plug up
> arteries. It is the lack of blood flow through thee plugged arteries
> that causes the heart attack.
>
> So, do you say that plugged arteries, which WILL cause a heart attack,
> are good?
>
Cholesterol today is recognised as having protective function.
Those that lives the longest have the highest cholesterol level. Those
that are emotionally stable and adaptable have the highest
cholesterol. And the list goes on.
What cause arterial plague is not cholesterol but the
inflamation and stresses that are placed on the arteries. The high
cholesterol level, more often than not, was a response of the body to
plug up or to soothe the arterial inflammation. This is why those who
work in highly stressful jobs have very high cholesterol. And if you
were to do a CR-P test you will find the value to be high.
So do you try to remove a protective response from your own
body by using statin and cause numerous other side-effects that could
be deadly or do you sit down and identify the real cause of the
problem and solve it from there ?
Good Soldier Schweik
<chio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I am a slave ? I posted this all on my own accord. The reason I
>> >am doing it because I saw how statins literally destroyed my mom's
>> >muscles and a little later a dear friend died of liver failure again
>> >due to statin.
>>
>> Then quite simply your mom (god Rest her) and your friend either
>> didn't follow the drug company's nor (I hope) their doctor's
>> recommendation and have a bi-annual liver function test.
>>
>
> Muscle wasting is not related to liver function. She had her
>normal blood test and her liver function seem fine.
>
> My friend prior to taking the statin had a blood test a few
>months before. His liver seem "normal". His liver failed 3 .... let
>me stress.... 3 weeks after he started taking statin for his high
>cholesterol. I found an internal memo of FDA which highlighted how
>liver failure started increasing when statin was introduced into the
>market and a new protocol of liver tasting was introduced. But NOT
>ALL will be caught by the liver test.
the following is from the Zimmex "information for Physicians" sheet
included in each box of the medicine. the complete sheet is available
on the Web so I have excerpted the portion of interest below:
----------------------------
It is recommended that liver function tests be performed before the
initiation of treatment, and thereafter when clinically indicated.
Patients titrated to the 80 mg dose should receive an additional test
prior to titration, 3 months after titration to the 80 mg dose, and
periodically thereafter (e.g., semiannually) for the first year of
treatment. Patients who develop increased transaminase levels should
be monitored with a second liver function evaluation to confirm the
finding and be followed thereafter with frequent liver function tests
until the abnormality(ies) return to normal. Should an increase in AST
or ALT of 3× ULN or greater persist, withdrawal of therapy with
simvastatin is recommended.
The drug should be used with caution in patients who consume
substantial quantities of alcohol and/or have a past history of liver
disease. Active liver diseases or unexplained transaminase elevations
are contraindications to the use of simvastatin.
As with other lipid-lowering agents, moderate (less than 3× ULN)
elevations of serum transaminases have been reported following therapy
with simvastatin. These changes appeared soon after initiation of
therapy with simvastatin, were often transient, were not accompanied
by any symptoms and did not require interruption of treatment.
-------------------------------
Now, I take simvastatin for my cholesterol and when the doctor
initially prescribed the medicine she took a blood test a few days
before giving me the medicine and a second a week after I started and
a third a month after I started taking the medicine. Subsequent to
that I have been taking a liver function test bi-annually. Further, I
know for a fact that the doctor only gives prescriptions for six
months after the initial test and has refused to renew the
prescription without a six monthly test being performed.
It may be that my doctor is over zealous, I don't know, but that is
her regime and I have been taking the stuff for several years with no
ill effects.
By the way, I think that you are wrong about cholesterol not being
dangerous. I know two people that have had by-pass surgery and in
both cases the surgeon has told them that their arteries were blocked
with cholesterol. Maybe the doctor lies, I don't know, but that is
what these guys were told.
Cheers,
Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
Admin
addr...@signature.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:06:47 -0800 (PST), Admin <chiong...@gmail.com>
You seem to miss the thrust of what I had said. It looked like we
were talking pass each other.
My contention is why prescribe a drug that doesn't solve a
problem it was supposed to solve ? Statins were supposed to lower
cholesterol and then as a benefitial effect reduce CHD. But it failed
to do and often the reduced cholesterol and numerous other side-
effects such as muscle wasting have to be endured by the patients.
Good Soldier Schweik
wrote:
>On Feb 24, 9:41 am, Good Soldier Schweik <decypher-
First of all, in my own case statins did reduce my cholesterol. In
fact, during the early use, before my dosage was set, the doctor
changed the size of the dosage several times and there was an
immediate and direct relationship between the size of the dose and the
cholesterol levels.
Secondly, in the two cases where people I know had bypass surgery, in
both cases the surgeon described the problem as "arteries plugged with
cholesterol". As I say, perhaps the doctor was lying, I don't know,
but I am describing things that I have direct experience in and it
would appear that your contentions are not 100% correct.
Cheers,
Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
Admin
> the following is from the Zimmex "information for Physicians" sheet
> included in each box of the medicine. the complete sheet is available
> on the Web so I have excerpted the portion of interest below:
>
This still DOESN'T ADDRESS what I had raised and i.e.
cholesterol is NOT THE CAUSE OF CHD and that cholesterol lowering
drugs are DANGEROUS.
>
> Now, I take simvastatin for my cholesterol and when the doctor
> initially prescribed the medicine she took a blood test a few days
> before giving me the medicine and a second a week after I started and
> a third a month after I started taking the medicine. Subsequent to
> that I have been taking a liver function test bi-annually. Further, I
> know for a fact that the doctor only gives prescriptions for six
> months after the initial test and has refused to renew the
> prescription without a six monthly test being performed.
>
How many people had died before this protocol was introduced ?
How many doctors knew of this protocol ? When I started researching
why all these happened to my mom and friend I found out to my horror
that THE FEW I ASKED HAD NO IDEA THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO THIS.
Why was this protocol introduced much later when it was
recommended as AS SAFE AS ASPIRIN ?
> It may be that my doctor is over zealous, I don't know, but that is
> her regime and I have been taking the stuff for several years with no
> ill effects.
>
Do you feel general weakness in your muscles ? Do you wake up
in the middle of the night between 1 and 3 am ? Do you have
difficulty getting to sleep ? Do you have night vision
impairment ?
I think you know the answer to these questions. All these
indicated liver failure.
> By the way, I think that you are wrong about cholesterol not being
> dangerous. I know two people that have had by-pass surgery and in
> both cases the surgeon has told them that their arteries were blocked
> with cholesterol. Maybe the doctor lies, I don't know, but that is
> what these guys were told.
>
Cholesterol is a very pervasive substance because ALL OF LIFE
depended on it. Every cell would collapse if not for cholesterol.
Because it is so important EVERY CELL IN THE BODY CAN MANUFACTURE IT
EXCEPT THE BRAIN CELLS.
Given such a situation do you think that you will not find
cholesterol in arterial plague ? But is cholesterol clogging up the
artery or is it trying to patch up all the scars in the arteries near
the heart ?
Further cholesterol is NOT SOLUBLE IN WATER and to carry it
around VLDL, iLDL, LDL and HDL are used. What you see around the
arterial plague are mostly LDL and very likely a lot of trans-fat.
In laboratory tests transfat, without fail, will clog up the
arteries inspite of having lower cholesterol.
And btw, people with low cholesterol both male and female have
the same chance of getting CHD(coronary heart disease) as medium level
and high level cholesterol level in the blood after the age of 55.
This had been establed time and time again. If this was the case do
you still think that cholesterol was the culprit ?
***** 2 of my posts seem to be missing - I wonder why. Not saying
that you do it but it is possible to delete other people's post
*****
Admin
addr...@signature.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:00:58 -0800 (PST), Admin <chiong...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> So admin, as you appear to recommend not taking statins what do you
> recommend for those suffering from high cholesterol and heart
> problems? Death?
>
When the real cause of the problem is not known the solution
itself becomes a problem. Look at the countless problems created by
cholesterol lowering drugs and then look at CHD in which it was
supposed to address and the picture becomes obvious. CHD was not
reduced but congestive heart failure and a whole host of other
problems were created.
Again, if it hasn't sunk in yet, CHOLESTEROL IS NOT THE CAUSE OF
CHD. But statin had been shown to cause congestive heart failure
because of the Co-Q10 depletion in the heart muscles.
> You do know that the cholesterol in your blood stream is manufactured
> by your liver, and not absorbed from what you eat, don't you?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Schweik
> (goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
It is quite apparent that you do not know that cholesterol is
not manufactured in the liver. Cholesterol is such and important
substance that every cell, except the brain cell, can manufacture
cholesterol.
LDLs, HDLs, iLDLs, VLDLS are lipoproteins. Cholesterol,
triglycerides and a lot of other substances are not soluble in water.
So to carry it around the blood the body literally rammed all these
substances into a lipoprotein which is soluble in water. So LDL and
HDL are actually lipoproteins and NOT CHOLESTEROL. So if LDL and HDLs
are found in plague it is not cholesterol. LDL and HDL do carry a lot
of other substances.
So if a doctor tells you that LDL are bad and HDL are good and
to increase one and lower the other we must control the cholesterol
then the doctor is basically selling you snake oil. Let's look at
some other snake oil from the pharmaceutical industry that recently
found to be highly dangerous to our health.
It had been believed and promoted that polyunsaturated oils
are very good at lowering the cholesterol. As cholesterol are bad
therefore anything that brings it down must be good. So people
started consuming polyunsaturated oil with great gusto. The result
was increasing obesity and insulin resistance, asthma and now even
cancer. It was found later that cholesterol was literally rammed
into all the cells and this was why there will be a sudden drop in
cholesterol when polyunsaturated fats were consumed.
Our body has a wonderful balancing mechanism. If we consume
cholesterol such as animal fat our body will store more of it in the
liver. If the body has a need for more cholesterol such as during
periods of stress, it will release more from the liver.
It is a balancing mechanism. To mess with this balancing
mechanism with statin is to really mess with our health. Humans don't
always know better and history had taught us time and time again this
simple truth.
Good Soldier Schweik
wrote:
>
>> the following is from the Zimmex "information for Physicians" sheet
>> included in each box of the medicine. the complete sheet is available
>> on the Web so I have excerpted the portion of interest below:
>>
>
> This still DOESN'T ADDRESS what I had raised and i.e.
>cholesterol is NOT THE CAUSE OF CHD and that cholesterol lowering
>drugs are DANGEROUS.
>
>>
>> Now, I take simvastatin for my cholesterol and when the doctor
>> initially prescribed the medicine she took a blood test a few days
>> before giving me the medicine and a second a week after I started and
>> a third a month after I started taking the medicine. Subsequent to
>> that I have been taking a liver function test bi-annually. Further, I
>> know for a fact that the doctor only gives prescriptions for six
>> months after the initial test and has refused to renew the
>> prescription without a six monthly test being performed.
>>
>
> How many people had died before this protocol was introduced ?
>How many doctors knew of this protocol ? When I started researching
>why all these happened to my mom and friend I found out to my horror
>that THE FEW I ASKED HAD NO IDEA THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO THIS.
>
I have no idea where you find your doctors but in the clinic I go to
(5 doctors) they aLL insist on a rigorous screening before they let
you run off eating statins. Perhaps it is because they act as "company
doctors" to many of the oil companies and construction companies who's
people work in isolated locations. As I said before, I don't know why
the doctors do this but I know that they do. In fact the senor doctor
who treated the owner of the company I worked for refused to renew the
owner's prescription unless he got a new liver function test. I know
this because the owner was ranting and raving about it.
> Why was this protocol introduced much later when it was
>recommended as AS SAFE AS ASPIRIN ?
>
>
>> It may be that my doctor is over zealous, I don't know, but that is
>> her regime and I have been taking the stuff for several years with no
>> ill effects.
>>
>
> Do you feel general weakness in your muscles ? Do you wake up
>in the middle of the night between 1 and 3 am ? Do you have
>difficulty getting to sleep ? Do you have night vision
>impairment ?
Never felt a thing and during the early days of the treatment I was
running 5 - 6 days a week and later bicycling 5 miles on week days and
100 Km (about 60 miles) on Sundays.
> I think you know the answer to these questions. All these
>indicated liver failure.
>
>> By the way, I think that you are wrong about cholesterol not being
>> dangerous. I know two people that have had by-pass surgery and in
>> both cases the surgeon has told them that their arteries were blocked
>> with cholesterol. Maybe the doctor lies, I don't know, but that is
>> what these guys were told.
>>
>
> Cholesterol is a very pervasive substance because ALL OF LIFE
>depended on it. Every cell would collapse if not for cholesterol.
>Because it is so important EVERY CELL IN THE BODY CAN MANUFACTURE IT
>EXCEPT THE BRAIN CELLS.
You are correct. But the fact that it is used in cell walls doesn't
mean that to doesn't clog arteries.
> Given such a situation do you think that you will not find
>cholesterol in arterial plague ? But is cholesterol clogging up the
>artery or is it trying to patch up all the scars in the arteries near
>the heart ?
>
> Further cholesterol is NOT SOLUBLE IN WATER and to carry it
>around VLDL, iLDL, LDL and HDL are used. What you see around the
>arterial plague are mostly LDL and very likely a lot of trans-fat.
>
> In laboratory tests transfat, without fail, will clog up the
>arteries inspite of having lower cholesterol.
>
> And btw, people with low cholesterol both male and female have
>the same chance of getting CHD(coronary heart disease) as medium level
>and high level cholesterol level in the blood after the age of 55.
>This had been establed time and time again. If this was the case do
>you still think that cholesterol was the culprit ?
>
>
>***** 2 of my posts seem to be missing - I wonder why. Not saying
>that you do it but it is possible to delete other people's post
>*****
Not to the best of my knowledge. In fact I'm not sure that even YOU
can delete your posts once they get into the archives.
I'm not a surgeon but I have certainly had more then one heart
specialist tell me that high cholesterol WILL result in clogged
arteries, as well as some other problems.
Now either these people are ignorant, or they are lying, but at least
they do have formal qualifications. So far you have not posted any
qualifications to show that you know what you are talking about.
I tend, when the argument is between an unqualified and a qualified
individual to tend to go with the qualified.
And don't go with the old saw about the doctors wanting to sell you
medicine as, at least in my case it isn't true. My doctor is in
Singapore and I live in Bangkok where the cost of medicine is maybe
half the Singapore price and they know I buy all my medicine in
Thailand. But I still get a discount, as an old customer, every time I
get a physical.
>> > So do you try to remove a protective response from your own
>> >body by using statin and cause numerous other side-effects that could
>> >be deadly or do you sit down and identify the real cause of the
>> >problem and solve it from there ?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Schweik
>> (goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
Cheers,
Good Soldier
(goodsoldierschweikatgmail.com)
maxwell
news:51307566-8e07-407c...@f17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> the following is from the Zimmex "information for Physicians" sheet
> included in each box of the medicine. the complete sheet is available on
> the Web so I have excerpted the portion of interest below:
adm: This still DOESN'T ADDRESS what I had raised and i.e. cholesterol is
NOT THE CAUSE OF CHD and that cholesterol lowering drugs are DANGEROUS.
Ah, good.. perhaps if you repeat the claims a FEW MORE TIMES IN CAPS, we can
dispense with anything resembling factual evidence? ;~)
> Now, I take simvastatin for my cholesterol and when the doctor initially
> prescribed the medicine she took a blood test a few days before giving me
> the medicine and a second a week after I started and a third a month after
> I started taking the medicine. Subsequent to that I have been taking a
> liver function test bi-annually. Further, I know for a fact that the
> doctor only gives prescriptions for six months after the initial test and
> has refused to renew the prescription without a six monthly test being
> performed.
That's all proper practice, and has been for the 20+ years statins have been
on the market--longer, actually, since the same tests were required in the
preclinical trials
adm: How many people had died before this protocol was introduced ?
That's a very good question. I doubt if you're truly interested in the
answer, however, as far more have been spared by statins ;~)
adm: How many doctors knew of this protocol ?
Every single one who ever read the FDA-required dispensing information for
statins, or in other words, every single one who cared about either the
patients or his or herself.
FACT: whether from PDR, Merck, the package inserts, CME, or basic medical
education, the protocols are not only ubiquitous, but required.
adm: When I started researching why all these happened to my mom and friend
I found out to my horror
that THE FEW I ASKED HAD NO IDEA THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO THIS.
That strongly suggests someone is either remarkably misinformed, was at the
mercy of quacks, or is not telling the truth.
adm: Why was this protocol introduced much later when it was recommended as
AS SAFE AS ASPIRIN ?
Please refrain from posting falsehoods!
> It may be that my doctor is over zealous, I don't know,
It may be that your doctor doesn't want to fall prey to malpractice suits,
FAIK ;~)
Simply put: Statins act upon the liver. NOT TO run baseline Liver Function
Tests and NOT TO run follow-up LFTs would be totally negligent.
FDA has required statin prescribing protocol to include these tests, due to
liver damage seen when HIGH doses were given to non-human animals, long
before human preclinical trials.
SO, lovastatin came from Merck in *1987* with this requirement for
physicians:
<q>Prior to initiating therapy with lovastatin, secondary causes for
hypercholesterolemia (e.g., poorly controlled diabetes mellitus,
hypothyroidism, nephrotic syndrome, dysproteinemias, obstructive liver
disease, other drug therapy, alcoholism) should be excluded, and a lipid
profile performed to measure total-C, HDL-C, and TG. </q>
. . umm .. .and subsequent statins carried similar prescribing constraints
. .
> but that is her regime and I have been taking the stuff for several years
> with no ill effects.
The vast majority of patients have similar experiences
adm: Do you feel general weakness in your muscles ? Do you wake up
in the middle of the night between 1 and 3 am ? Do you have difficulty
getting to sleep ? Do you have night vision
impairment ? I think you know the answer to these questions. All these
indicated liver failure.
.. umm.. there's a multitude of things that can bring on such effects . .
> By the way, I think that you are wrong about cholesterol not being
> dangerous. I know two people that have had by-pass surgery and in
> both cases the surgeon has told them that their arteries were blocked
> with cholesterol. Maybe the doctor lies, I don't know, but that is what
> these guys were told.
adm: Cholesterol is a very pervasive substance because ALL OF LIFE depended
on it.
WRONG. Bacteria do fine without cholesterol !
adm: Every cell would collapse if not for cholesterol. Because it is so
important EVERY CELL IN THE BODY CAN MANUFACTURE IT EXCEPT THE BRAIN CELLS.
Oh for heaven's sake, would you PLEASE at least PRETEND to know what you're
talking about?
Almost ALL of the cholesterol in the brain is a product of local synthesis !
Sheesh--enough for now ! ;~p
Admin
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:07:27 -0800 (PST), Admin <chiong...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > How many people had died before this protocol was introduced ?
> >How many doctors knew of this protocol ? When I started researching
> >why all these happened to my mom and friend I found out to my horror
> >that THE FEW I ASKED HAD NO IDEA THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO THIS.
>
> I have no idea where you find your doctors but in the clinic I go to
> (5 doctors) they aLL insist on a rigorous screening before they let
> you run off eating statins. Perhaps it is because they act as "company
> doctors" to many of the oil companies and construction companies who's
> people work in isolated locations. As I said before, I don't know why
> the doctors do this but I know that they do. In fact the senor doctor
> who treated the owner of the company I worked for refused to renew the
> owner's prescription unless he got a new liver function test. I know
> this because the owner was ranting and raving about it.
>
The fact that your doctor had followed protocol does not mean
that every other doctor who prescribe cholesterol lowering drug will
do the same. Some doctors who are responsible even printed out the
side effects and some basic information on the drugs and then gave it
to the patients for them to consider jointly with their family
members. A friend showed this to me when he was recommended to go on
cholesterol lowering drugs. But such doctors are a rarity.
How many doctros will tell you that statins will depelete your
heart muscles of Co-Q10 and would have a high chance of congestive
heart failure ? But this fact had been known ages ago.
> > Do you feel general weakness in your muscles ? Do you wake up
> >in the middle of the night between 1 and 3 am ? Do you have
> >difficulty getting to sleep ? Do you have night vision
> >impairment ?
>
> Never felt a thing and during the early days of the treatment I was
> running 5 - 6 days a week and later bicycling 5 miles on week days and
> 100 Km (about 60 miles) on Sundays.
>
You are the lucky ones - but perhaps not. For those not so lucky
and others interested in knowing what others had gone through look at
this :
http://www.spacedoc.net/board/
> > Cholesterol is a very pervasive substance because ALL OF LIFE
> >depended on it. Every cell would collapse if not for cholesterol.
> >Because it is so important EVERY CELL IN THE BODY CAN MANUFACTURE IT
> >EXCEPT THE BRAIN CELLS.
>
> You are correct. But the fact that it is used in cell walls doesn't
> mean that to doesn't clog arteries.
>
>
In the early years of understanding the cause of heart disease,
particularly during the korean war, many of those who died in the war
was cut up to see the the extend of the clogging of arteries. They
found cholesterol in all the plague in the arterial walls. With such a
finding in mind the researches went about constructing a theory of the
cause of arthesclerosis. Until todate this theory had never been
proven. Consider the following very new study called ENHANCE.
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/vytorin
I have extracted a part of it just to give the gist of the
message.
-------
The ENHANCE Study
The ENHANCE study, which was funded by Merck and Schering-Plough,
focused on a group of 720 patients with a rare condition predisposing
them to high cholesterol. The patients were given either Vytorin or a
high dose of simvastatin, the generic form of Zocor. While both
Vytorin and Zetia were found to have significantly reduced cholesterol
in these patients, neither drug provided any significant benefit
versus the statin drug Zocor in slowing down clogging of the
arteries. Overall, the study failed to meet its primary goal, which
was to show whether Vytorin was more effective than Zocor alone in
preventing progression of atherosclerosis in the carotid artery, which
is in the neck.
Such plaque buildup is a major risk factor for heart attacks and
stroke. Many doctors had been prescribing Vytorin or Zetia on the
theory that the drugs would reduce this risk in people with high
cholesterol. The ENHANCE study was a serious blow to this theory.
There is some evidence that Merck and Schering-Plough tried to
suppress the ENHANCE studies findings. The data from the ENHANCE
trial was supposed to be released by March 2007, but that didn’t
happen. In November 2007, the doctor who supervised the ENHANCE
trial told the New York Times that the drug’s’ makers, who controlled
the study’s raw data, blocked its release. In December, a
congressional committee requested more information on the ENHA NCE
study. Merck and Schering-Plough maintained that the ENHANCE results
were delayed because of the complexity of the data.
----------------
> >***** 2 of my posts seem to be missing - I wonder why. Not saying
> >that you do it but it is possible to delete other people's post
> >*****
>
> Not to the best of my knowledge. In fact I'm not sure that even YOU
> can delete your posts once they get into the archives.
>
It is possible to do it and it had been done before.
> >> > What cause arterial plague is not cholesterol but the
> >> >inflamation and stresses that are placed on the arteries. The high
> >> >cholesterol level, more often than not, was a response of the body to
> >> >plug up or to soothe the arterial inflammation. This is why those who
> >> >work in highly stressful jobs have very high cholesterol. And if you
> >> >were to do a CR-P test you will find the value to be high.
>
> I'm not a surgeon but I have certainly had more then one heart
> specialist tell me that high cholesterol WILL result in clogged
> arteries, as well as some other problems.
>
> Now either these people are ignorant, or they are lying, but at least
> they do have formal qualifications. So far you have not posted any
> qualifications to show that you know what you are talking about.
>
> I tend, when the argument is between an unqualified and a qualified
> individual to tend to go with the qualified.
>
Does a piece of paper qualify a person or the skill, knowledge
and understanding of the person qualify the paper ? The nice thing
about the internet is that I don't have to appeal to some arbitrary
authority for credibility. You read what I say, do your own homework,
try to understand the issues from all sides and then make your own
judgement. My qualification is not as important. I always hold the
view that if I spend enough time and energy on a singular topic in
medicine or any field I would know enough, perhaps even more than
people in the field, to discuss the issue.
When I first started out to try to understand the issues I went
to the actual clinical studies and read all the gory details and
conclusion. What I found in some medical studies, to my surprise, and
had never happened in any other field of research that I know of, was
that what was written in the summary is grossly different from the
actual findings in the study. If a doctor were to just read the
summary and formed its own conclusions based on that than their
understanding would be flawed.
Look at the ENHANCE study I posted. Had the lowering of
cholesterol reduced plague formation ? It hadn't and I don't have to
be a surgeon to understand this simple conclusion.
> And don't go with the old saw about the doctors wanting to sell you
> medicine as, at least in my case it isn't true. My doctor is in
> Singapore and I live in Bangkok where the cost of medicine is maybe
> half the Singapore price and they know I buy all my medicine in
> Thailand. But I still get a discount, as an old customer, every time I
> get a physical.
>
There are many reasons why doctors say what they say. When I
was doing the background research on the subject I met a heart
specialist who just retired then. I put the question to him about
cholesterol and statins and his remarks actually surprised me. He said
that the theory and the whole cholesterol lowering drug solution was a
farce. He saw with his own eyes how badly damaged his patients had
become after having been on the drugs for some time. He tried never
to prescribe but he said he was bound by the "established
standards."
Can a medical doctor prescribe gingko biloba , vitamin C,
qigong, etc. to reduce their heart attack risk ?
Good Soldier Schweik
wrote:
>On Feb 27, 10:03 pm, Good Soldier Schweik <see.addr...@at.bottom>
To answer your last bit.
I doubt that any doctor actually said " he was bound by the
"established standards." If for no other reasons that there is no law,
regulation or policy that says a doctor has to prescribe any specific
medicine for any specific malady.
Secondly, a doctor can prescribe any thing that he wants to, and some
do. In fact there was a doctor that prescribed alfalfa and honey - and
wrote a book about it, too. Again, there is no law or regulation
specifying what medicines a doctor may prescribe other then the
general policy of "do no harm".
Finally, I find that the strongest evidence against your supposition
is that overwhelmingly doctors do state that high cholesterol is
dangerous to health and do prescribe statins to help prevent it. In
addition teaching hospitals and medical schools teach the same thing.
To accept your suppositions it would be necessary for one of two
situations to exist:
1. Nearly the entire world medical profession would have to be wrong
in believing that cholesterol is unhealthy and that at the present
statins are the best available prevention or,
2. A conspiracy exists encompassing the world's medicine
manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and medical schools, since if your
suppositions would stand the light of exposure in a court of law can
you even imagine what kind of award a claimant for damage due to the
use of an unsafe drug on a world wide would be? You would have a class
action case involving billions of claimants and every lawyer alive
would be fighting to take the case.
No, at the moment your theory is about as creditable as the 7-11
theorists who deny the fact that there have been at least three
separate investigations into the towers fall, two of which I have read
in peer reviewed publications.
This is not to say that statins are the absolute best solution that
will ever be discovered for the to the problem - but they are the best
solution that is available at the present.
Cheers,
Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
pluto
<add...@signature.invalid> in this message <aWeol.63731$qt3....@newsfe10.iad>
<0566886b-ffe5-461f...@q30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
<t5k6q45p0rjuunltm...@4ax.com>
<1f415539-70cd-4e25...@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
<fev7q494mp7psf2c7...@4ax.com>
<51307566-8e07-407c...@f17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
<hdrfq4tqhsd1hecvg...@4ax.com>
<80eab500-ae1f-4121...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com> from
<elekq4l7ru65tsoe5...@4ax.com> subject as: Re: 900 Studies Show
Statin Drugs are Dangerous:
wrote/and/or quoted:
>To answer your last bit.
ok ok ok,
there appears to be a "conspiracy" on the definition of cholesterol's and the
attendant uses/misuses/interventions/treatments of iatrogenic diseases/biochem-
k ian sticks to his recipe bowl on the "nutritional/dietary/goodwifecook of good
common sense cooking and eating
k goodsoldier et al went to town with ch ld plugs statins in tow
is it agreed that the two cholesterols- ldl and cdl (also called the "bad
cholesterol" and the "good cholesterol" - exist in tandem in normal/abnormal
blood chemistry?
to date, is it correct to say that:
there is NO SINGLE statin/statin-like/statin
functional-related/"specific-cholesterol-improving-drug" or "common sense food"
which "improves" one kind of cholesterol over the other?
==============================================
caveat fair use notice:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
pluto
<add...@signature.invalid> in this message <aWeol.63731$qt3....@newsfe10.iad>
<0566886b-ffe5-461f...@q30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
<t5k6q45p0rjuunltm...@4ax.com>
<1f415539-70cd-4e25...@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
<fev7q494mp7psf2c7...@4ax.com>
<51307566-8e07-407c...@f17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
<hdrfq4tqhsd1hecvg...@4ax.com>
<80eab500-ae1f-4121...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com> from
<elekq4l7ru65tsoe5...@4ax.com> subject as: Re: 900 Studies Show
Statin Drugs are Dangerous:
wrote/and/or quoted:
>To answer your last bit.
Good Soldier Schweik
Not exactly, but I suggest that your point is that this thread has
gone on too long and I agree.
Cheers,
Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
maxwell
"pluto" wrote ...
> Good Soldier Schweik wrote:
>>To answer your last bit.
> ok ok ok,
> there appears to be a "conspiracy" on the definition of cholesterol's and
> the attendant uses/misuses/interventions/treatments of iatrogenic
> diseases/biochem-
> k ian sticks to his recipe bowl on the "nutritional/dietary/goodwifecook
> of good common sense cooking and eating
good practice: 'eat well, live well'
> k goodsoldier et al went to town with ch ld plugs statins in tow
good effort: 'go with what one knows'
> is it agreed that the two cholesterols- ldl and cdl (also called the "bad
> cholesterol" and the "good cholesterol" - exist in tandem in
> normal/abnormal blood chemistry?
chole--from the Greek: bile, and thus of the liver.
stereos--solid
ol--as in alcohol (all cholesterol molecules terminate in the HO- hydroxyl
group of alcohols {as does CH2CH2OH, a.k.a. ethanol, the basis of all booze
;~)
first please note that the 'd' (of ldl, hdl, etc .. ) refers to density and
the final 'l' refers to lipoprotein.
then please note that more commonly ldl (low density lipoprotein) is
contrasted with hdl (high density lipoprotein)
then note that yes, both (actually, several) lipoproteins
{lipo(fat)protein(amino acid chain)} are present, and it is the proportions
that are of concern.
lipoproteins are transporters/carriers of lipids(fats) {cholesterol,
triglycerides, e.g.}
> to date, is it correct to say that:
> there is NO SINGLE statin/statin-like/statin
> functional-related/"specific-cholesterol-improving-drug" or "common sense
> food"
> which "improves" one kind of cholesterol over the other?
not correct.
in fact, statins modify hepatic (liver) synthesis of lipoproteins to favour
a greater bias towards the hdl, and (to a lesser extent), so does dietary
choice.
pluto
<add...@signature.invalid> in this message
<t5k6q45p0rjuunltm...@4ax.com>
<1f415539-70cd-4e25...@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
<fev7q494mp7psf2c7...@4ax.com>
<51307566-8e07-407c...@f17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
<hdrfq4tqhsd1hecvg...@4ax.com>
<80eab500-ae1f-4121...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
<nbmkq4pe2lpg2hpch...@4ax.com> from
<7n0lq4pocgg88odhc...@4ax.com> subject as: Re: 900 Studies Show
Statin Drugs are Dangerous:
wrote/and/or quoted:
>Not exactly,
hm? huh? !! ;-)))
> but I suggest that your point is that this thread has
>gone on too long
not at all, k gs
this is more informative and rewarding compared to your duel with your hallowed
and faithful friends ;-))
> and I agree.
i dont
5555555555555555555555
CKSF
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 154.65.49.60.klj04-home.tm.net.my
X-Trace: news.tm.net.my 1235917846 60.49.65.154 (1 Mar 2009 22:30:46
+0800)
Ah, the resident identity thief is now calling himself pluto ... LOL
NNTP-Posting-Host: 154.65.49.60.klj04-home.tm.net.my
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 154.65.49.60.klj04-home.tm.net.my
X-Trace: news.tm.net.my 1235917846 60.49.65.154 (1 Mar 2009 22:30:46
+0800)
Admin
missing and the threading in google news seem "lost".
----------------------------
On Feb 28, 10:14 am, "maxwell" <mmmaxw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Admin" <chiong...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:51307566-8e07-407c...@f17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> adm: This still DOESN'T ADDRESS what I had raised and i.e. cholesterol is
> NOT THE CAUSE OF CHD and that cholesterol lowering drugs are DANGEROUS.
>
> Ah, good.. perhaps if you repeat the claims a FEW MORE TIMES IN CAPS, we can
> dispense with anything resembling factual evidence? ;~)
>
I had presented studies, very large studies, and commentary by
Dr.Ravnskov. What had you presented by way of "factual evidence" ?
[ Liver test before statin presription --- deleted ]
> That's all proper practice, and has been for the 20+ years statins have been
> on the market--longer, actually, since the same tests were required in the
> preclinical trials
>
Not true. In the 80's they had found that statin was hepatoxic
in animals but when statin was introduce liver test were not part of
the protocol. When people started dying of liver failure FDA
recommended the changes to the statin labelling.
Liver tests is quite routine in any clinical trial.
In this study :
************
Statins and Liver Toxicity: A Meta-Analysis
Posted 06/03/2004
Simon de Denus, M.Sc.; Sarah A. Spinler, Pharm.D., FCCP; Kristin
Miller, Pharm.D.; Andrew M. Peterson, Pharm.D.
*************
It was mentioned that some of the statins had added the inserts
that recommended liver function test. I supposed from here that liver
function tests were never routine.
> adm: How many people had died before this protocol was introduced ?
>
> That's a very good question. I doubt if you're truly interested in the
> answer, however, as far more have been spared by statins ;~)
>
This is blatant falsehood. Statin does reduce coronary heart
disease slightly but not because it lowered the cholesterol but
because it had anti-inflammatory properties. However overal mortality
proved that statin doesn't do anything for the patients but only put
them in harm's way and untold suffering from the side-effects of
taking statin.
Please look up how statin reduce inflammation in :
http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth6.htm
------ Excerpts from : Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven’t Been
Told About Popular
Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD
( http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html)
------------------------------------
But as Dr. Ravnskov has pointed out in his book The Cholesterol Myths,
the results of the major studies up to the year 2000--the 4S,
WOSCOPS,CARE, AFCAPS and LIPID studies--generally showed only small
differences and these differences were often statistically
insignificant and independent of the amount of cholesterol lowering
achieved. In two studies, EXCEL, and FACAPT/TexCAPS, more deaths
occurred in the treatment group compared to controls. Dr. Ravnskov’s
1992 meta-analysis of 26 controlled cholesterol lowering trials found
an equal number of cardiovascular deaths in the treatment and control
groups and a greater number of total deaths in the treatment groups.
An analysis of all the big controlled trials reported before 2000
found that long-term use of statins for primary prevention of heart
disase produced a 1 percent greater risk of death over 10 years
compared to a placebo.
-------------------------------------------
There a lot of other cheaper and safer ways to reduce arterial
inflammation. Amongst which are vitamin C, gingko biloba and fish
oil.
> adm: How many doctors knew of this protocol ?
>
> Every single one who ever read the FDA-required dispensing information for
> statins, or in other words, every single one who cared about either the
> patients or his or herself.
> FACT: whether from PDR, Merck, the package inserts, CME, or basic medical
> education, the protocols are not only ubiquitous, but required.
>
Not true. The protocol was only introduced recently and it
was a post-release insert. It was NOT mandatory. Todate it continued
as an advisory.
They had even been a call to remove this advisory insert when
they tried to make statin an OTC drug.
> adm: Why was this protocol introduced much later when it was recommended as
> AS SAFE AS ASPIRIN ?
>
> Please refrain from posting falsehoods!
>
Follow the discussion above and who is really posting falsehood
is obvious to one and all.
> > It may be that my doctor is over zealous, I don't know,
>
> It may be that your doctor doesn't want to fall prey to malpractice suits,
> FAIK ;~)
So if the recommendation is for statin to lower cholesterol to
reduce the risk of CHD a doctor would do it.....but what if the statin
caused liver failure and a whole host of other diseases, could the
doctor still be sued, considering that there are abundant studies to
prove it ?
> Simply put: Statins act upon the liver. NOT TO run baseline Liver Function
> Tests and NOT TO run follow-up LFTs would be totally negligent.
> FDA has required statin prescribing protocol to include these tests, due to
> liver damage seen when HIGH doses were given to non-human animals, long
> before human preclinical trials.
>
> SO, lovastatin came from Merck in *1987* with this requirement for
> physicians:
> <q>Prior to initiating therapy with lovastatin, secondary causes for
> hypercholesterolemia (e.g., poorly controlled diabetes mellitus,
> hypothyroidism, nephrotic syndrome, dysproteinemias, obstructive liver
> disease, other drug therapy, alcoholism) should be excluded, and a lipid
> profile performed to measure total-C, HDL-C, and TG. </q>
>
> . . umm .. .and subsequent statins carried similar prescribing constraints
> . .
Only lipid profile was recommended. No liver function tests was
specifically recommended in what you has posted. Are you trying to
pull a fast one here. LFT was a later package insert if I remember
correctly it was after the Baycol recall.
>
> > but that is her regime and I have been taking the stuff for several years
> > with no ill effects.
>
> The vast majority of patients have similar experiences
>
One often overlooked side-effect of lowering cholesterol is
depression and a whole host of other symptoms related to it.
Depression, easily angered, temper tantruts, irritability, suicidal
tendency etc. are all related to this. Of course many physicians would
dismiss this as not related to the drug but more and more evidence are
now emerging. This is particularly so for those who take fat-soluble
statin.
Try talking to the people in this forum :
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=1351
http://www.fumeintheforum.org/vb/showthread.php?t=308
> > By the way, I think that you are wrong about cholesterol not being
> > dangerous. I know two people that have had by-pass surgery and in
> > both cases the surgeon has told them that their arteries were blocked
> > with cholesterol. Maybe the doctor lies, I don't know, but that is what
> > these guys were told.
>
> adm: Cholesterol is a very pervasive substance because ALL OF LIFE depended
> on it.
>
> WRONG. Bacteria do fine without cholesterol !
>
Thanks max, that's very helpful 8-). Ok....the rest of life
other than bacteria.
> adm: Every cell would collapse if not for cholesterol. Because it is so
> important EVERY CELL IN THE BODY CAN MANUFACTURE IT EXCEPT THE BRAIN CELLS.
>
> Oh for heaven's sake, would you PLEASE at least PRETEND to know what you're
> talking about?
>
> Almost ALL of the cholesterol in the brain is a product of local synthesis !
>
> Sheesh--enough for now ! ;~p
Thanks max. I did a stock take and I found why I made that
statement. It was only in 2001 was this fact discovered. Researchers
often called it the "glial factor" and did not know why or how it was
functioning. Research in 2001, by Mauch, et al., published in volume
294 of Science magazine, determined that the unknown glial factor is
cholesterol, which is released by the glial cells in a carrier called
"apolipoprotein E."
I based my understanding of cholesterol on an article in' The
cholesterol myth'
(http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html) and the
website was last updated in 18 September 2000.
So before 2001 no one really knew that cholesterol was a result
of local synthesis.
Let's get back to the real issue at hand and i.e.
a. Statin does not prevent heart disease by lowering
cholesterol. It had anti-inflammatory properties. Such anti-
inflammatory properties could have be gotten much easier with vitamin
C, gingko biloba, fish oil etc. - without the side effects.
b. Statin cause serious side effects. It basically make
patients out of normally healthy individuals and the supposed health
benefit from heart attact prevention by lowering cholesterol is a
lie.
As CKSF said we must do a cost-benefit analysis. The cost is
way too high and the benefit is suspicious at best.
Admin
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:49:54 -0800 (PST), Admin <chiong...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 27, 10:03 pm, Good Soldier Schweik <see.addr...@at.bottom>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:07:27 -0800 (PST), Admin <chiong...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> > Can a medical doctor prescribe gingko biloba , vitamin C,
> >qigong, etc. to reduce their heart attack risk ?
>
> To answer your last bit.
>
> I doubt that any doctor actually said " he was bound by the
> "established standards." If for no other reasons that there is no law,
> regulation or policy that says a doctor has to prescribe any specific
> medicine for any specific malady.
>
making this up let me refer you to :
ALIVE AND WELL
One Doctor's Experience
with Nutrition in the
Treatment of
Cancer Patients
By
Philip E. Binzel, Jr., M.D.
The book is free and can be found on the internet.
> Secondly, a doctor can prescribe any thing that he wants to, and some
> do. In fact there was a doctor that prescribed alfalfa and honey - and
> wrote a book about it, too. Again, there is no law or regulation
> specifying what medicines a doctor may prescribe other then the
> general policy of "do no harm".
>
There are a growing number of doctors and this I am referring to
is allopathic medicine doctors who for one reason or another had been
disenchanted with allopathic medicine and had used safer alternatives
such as diet and homoeopathy. But these doctors open themselves up to
ridicule by their peers and when they were sued their peers will never
come to their defence. In western countries where a professional is
sued more often than anywhere in the world it is risky to go the path
less trodden.
Having said this you are also right that doctors can prescribe
anything.
> Finally, I find that the strongest evidence against your supposition
> is that overwhelmingly doctors do state that high cholesterol is
> dangerous to health and do prescribe statins to help prevent it. In
> addition teaching hospitals and medical schools teach the same thing.
>
Evidence-based medicine is supposed to be based on evidence.
My background is in science and over the years I had thought of
alternative medicines as quackary and modern medicine as
infallible.....until I had a few personal experiences where modern
medicine failed miserably while alternative medicine worked like a
charm. I have to admit that alternative medicine requires a lot more
skill than modern medicine and much of it has to be intuitive rather
than objective.
In my search for understanding I found to my dismay that much
of what was concluded were often not supported in the actual
research....I actually went and look at the actual paper as far as I
could. Much of what doctors read are summaries and pharmaceutical
literature.
Research fraud had been quite prevalent in recent decades,
shifting end-points, negative result suppression, selective sampling
etc. were all used to support a myth that cholesterol was the cause of
heart disease. Just to illustrate my point by way of an example.
For a very long while women were excluded from researches using
statin. This is called selective sampling. And yet many women were
prescribed statin drugs even though no research had been done to
establish that it was useful for women. The reason why women were
excluded in almost all the initial studies was that the framingham
study, the mother of all cholesterol research, found that there was NO
CORRELATION between cholesterol level for women. There is a small
correlation at age 50 and 55 but after 55 , for both men and women
there is no correlation between heart attack and cholesterol level.
Yet most of the drugs were prescribed for the elderlies.
> To accept your suppositions it would be necessary for one of two
> situations to exist:
>
> 1. Nearly the entire world medical profession would have to be wrong
> in believing that cholesterol is unhealthy and that at the present
> statins are the best available prevention or,
>
Not the entire world. Again to illustrate my point. Bacteria as
the cause of gastroenteritis was never accepted for more than a
decades. The poor doctor was ridiculed, condemned, research funding
not forthcoming etc. The "entire world medical profession" said he
was wrong. Then bit by bit it was accepted and he was then awarded
the nobel prize.
Truth can never be established by repeated assertion nor could it
be established by the voice of the majority.
> 2. A conspiracy exists encompassing the world's medicine
> manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and medical schools, since if your
> suppositions would stand the light of ...
>
Group think is more likely the explanation than conspiracy.
The pharmaceutical industry set out to promote a disease and then
started to corrupt men/women, researchers etc......much of what I say
above had been established by congressional public hearing. It was a
systematic attempt at disease mongering. Another blatant example
would be the "HIV as the cause of AIDS".
(post truncated by google)........I use google for my news
reading and it had truncated the post....it was too long.
Thanks good soldier for the exchange.