Statins

[drcha]

I can never figure out why people think they can tool around on a bunch of dotcom sites for a few hours--sites directed at sales and hype (not education or peer review)--and put together a thesis that's contrary to that of learned individuals who have spent their entire lives studying these things and who gain no benefit by lying to others.

No, medicine doesn't have all the answers. But you aren't going to get them on Google, either.

Yes, the pharma industry lies at times. But not every clinician is in their pocket; most of us aren't, and most of us know better than to be swayed by their research without doing more digging.

Yes, statins can have side effects. But one must look at the risk-benefit ratio. Overall, statins save lives.

Please keep in mind that when you take a supplement, you don't know what you're getting. They're not regulated in the same way as pharmaceuticals. Please don't talk to me about reputable sources of supplements, because no one knows who/where those are. You only know where you think they are.

 

[destriero]

I can never figure out why people think they can tool around on a bunch of dotcom sites for a few hours--sites directed at sales and hype (not education or peer review)--and put together a thesis that's contrary to that of learned individuals who have spent their entire lives studying these things and who gain no benefit by lying to others.

No, medicine doesn't have all the answers. But you aren't going to get them on Google, either.

Yes, the pharma industry lies at times. But not every clinician is in their pocket; most of us aren't, and most of us know better than to be swayed by their research without doing more digging.

Yes, statins can have side effects. But one must look at the risk-benefit ratio. Overall, statins save lives.

Please keep in mind that when you take a supplement, you don't know what you're getting. They're not regulated in the same way as pharmaceuticals. Please don't talk to me about reputable sources of supplements, because no one knows who/where those are. You only know where you think they are.

You're entirely full of shit.

I worked in the field; oncology and cardiology (p-gp inhibition with CCAs in chemotherapeutic-resistant tumor models). Dox-induced cardiomyopathy. Google leads to pubmed you fvcking cvnt.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

I can never figure out why people think they can tool around on a bunch of dotcom sites for a few hours--sites directed at sales and hype (not education or peer review)--and put together a thesis that's contrary to that of learned individuals who have spent their entire lives studying these things and who gain no benefit by lying to others.

No, medicine doesn't have all the answers. But you aren't going to get them on Google, either.

Yes, the pharma industry lies at times. But not every clinician is in their pocket; most of us aren't, and most of us know better than to be swayed by their research without doing more digging.

Yes, statins can have side effects. But one must look at the risk-benefit ratio. Overall, statins save lives.

Please keep in mind that when you take a supplement, you don't know what you're getting. They're not regulated in the same way as pharmaceuticals. Please don't talk to me about reputable sources of supplements, because no one knows who/where those are. You only know where you think they are.

Attached below is a wikipedia.org article on statins. According to my chemist friend, statins should be avoided unless there is a true medical emergency. He briefly described the mechanism behind statins causing mental deficiencies. Cholesterol has a critical role involving hormones that statins can interfere with.

I believe there are more effective treatments that involves dietary changes, stress reduction, and considerable sustained excercise that yields much better long term outcomes and without the side effects of statins.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin

 

[schweiz]

Attached below is a wikipedia.org article on statins. According to my chemist friend, statins should be avoided unless there is a true medical emergency. He briefly described the mechanism behind statins causing mental deficiencies. Cholesterol has a critical role involving hormones that statins can interfere with.

I believe there are more effective treatments that involves dietary changes, stress reduction, and considerable sustained excercise that yields much better long term outcomes and without the side effects of statins.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin

"statins causing mental deficiencies?" If you exagerate anything you eat/take in can be bad for your health. Too much or too little is always bad. But telling that statins are causing mental deficiencies is very inaccurate. All depends of what and how much you take , and most important what your cholesterol level is. Is it below 130 it can indeed cause mental deficiencies, but if it is too high, let's say 260, it might cause health problems too.

Be careful with what you read on wikipedia.
This is a small part of the link below:"Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

Anybody can post anything on wikipedia. There is no need of proof of what you post. Or in other words: the scientic value of wikipedia can be zero.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recheck_before_posting

 

[Pekelo]

Ah, the doctor is in da house!!! As a starter, I couldn't fail to notice that you were low on facts, and high on something, but that wasn't a well presented argument. Basically you just tried to kill the messenger. Bad,bad doctor...

I can never figure out why people think they can tool around

Well, wonder no more, I will gladly explain it to you.

Once a child grows up and learns more about the world he/she easily can realize that just about 60% of everything is bullshit and he/she has been lied to, including the medical profession. And when it comes to science it is really surprising, because we can go to the Moon, but can't figure out if eggs are good or bad for us??? My doctor wants to alter my lipid profile by changing my diet, when just about everybody knows that is not how it works, otherwise we wouldn't need statins??? (and this has been known since the 60s?)

How come the food pyramid what science taught us in the 90s proved to be completely wrong and inaccurate?? How come that Americans are taking statins like candy yet, CVDs are still increasing? Explain that to me good doctor!

Or could it be, just maybe, that the science of CVDs are based on bullshit, and certain diet can alter not the lipid profile but the calcification of our arteries? How can science use a marker (Total Cholesterol) that misses the signaling of a disease 50% of the time? Just because we can measure something that doesn't mean it has a predictive value.

The internet didn't do more than provided easier access to data and info and counter argument. An interested person 30 years ago could have done the same thing in a library, it is just much faster and easier today. Ancel Keys was proven wrong back in the 70s, the medical profession just fucked up backing him, for whatever reason.

Fats are good, sugar and carbs are bad, at the end of the day. Once you change that in your diet your health surprisingly gets better. That is a fact, you don't need a doctor to explain it to you.

And let me explain American doctors' approach to established science, even if it is wrong. Once a treatment is accepted and becomes established, going against it opens them up to liability and being sued, no matter if they are actually right. So since statins are the established prevention treatment for CVDs, if you don't at least offer it to the patient you can get sued later.

Do statins work? Actually they do, for people with already existing CVD condition. But for an average person specially women over 50, its usage is less advisable. If you need to treat 200 people to save 1 life, does it really work? How many of those 199 people get side effects that can be muscle cramps and actually weakening of the heart (by taking out Co-Q10)?

So at the very least let's patients educate themselves by the internet or libraries if you wish, and let them decide if they want to go the statin route or not.

And as I showed, the same effect of statins can be achieved in more natural and cheaper ways like drinking Amla or taking Berberine.

Now what say you, good doctor? Do you care to throw FACTS at me?

 

[Pekelo]

Anybody can post anything on wikipedia.

That is actually not true anymore. Also most good articles have indexes and footnotes, so one can use the article as a starting point and visit the referenced footnotes for further knowledge.

Going back to statins, we critics think they work in a different way, than it was explained to us. Beside lowering the TC it is also good against inflammation and lowers Trig levels. I think those effects are actually more useful against CVDs, than the TC lowering characteristic. But if we are right, than people at risk should just take anti-inflammatory/Trig lowering supplements and meds, instead of statins.

---------------------

On a different note, here is another aspect of the medical industry. There is actually a naturally occurring statin, in Red Yeast Rice. It is cheap and wildly available. Well, used to be. Now what did the medical industry do? They outlawed the selling of RYR with statin content, because that would fuck up the profits from all the prescription statin sales! A monthly dose of RYR would cost less than $10 on Amazon and somebody is already making profit on it. But hey, profits from statins is I bet 5+ times more, so who needs a cheap competitor?

So if the government and the industry actually cared about the people they could advise to take Amla and RYR for less than $20 per month and we would have the same effect than taking Lescor, Zocor, Crestor, Lipitor, etc.

What say you to that argument?? If you want statins, so be it, but why can't we take it in natural form?

 

[El OchoCinco]

I still have not seen any doctor explain why 2 studies which showed that .008% of people with high cholesterol suffered a fatal coronary event requires a medicine to be given to all to lower cholesterol rather than focus on diet and lifestyle changes for non severe cases. Also if .008% of people with high cholesterol have a coronary heart event, then maybe cholesterol is not the risk factor everyone claims it is....

hmm...and that was peer reviewed research. No way that who the funding came from or lobbying had anything to do with approval of this wonder drug...

 

[destriero]

I still have not seen any doctor explain why 2 studies which showed that .008% of people with high cholesterol suffered a fatal coronary event requires a medicine to be given to all to lower cholesterol rather than focus on diet and lifestyle changes for non severe cases. Also if .008% of people with high cholesterol have a coronary heart event, then maybe cholesterol is not the risk factor everyone claims it is....

hmm...and that was peer reviewed research. No way that who the funding came from or lobbying had anything to do with approval of this wonder drug...

0.8%?

 

[destriero]

That is actually not true anymore. Also most good articles have indexes and footnotes, so one can use the article as a starting point and visit the referenced footnotes for further knowledge.

Going back to statins, we critics think they work in a different way, than it was explained to us. Beside lowering the TC it is also good against inflammation and lowers Trig levels. I think those effects are actually more useful against CVDs, than the TC lowering characteristic. But if we are right, than people at risk should just take anti-inflammatory/Trig lowering supplements and meds, instead of statins.

---------------------

On a different note, here is another aspect of the medical industry. There is actually a naturally occurring statin, in Red Yeast Rice. It is cheap and wildly available. Well, used to be. Now what did the medical industry do? They outlawed the selling of RYR with statin content, because that would fuck up the profits from all the prescription statin sales! A monthly dose of RYR would cost less than $10 on Amazon and somebody is already making profit on it. But hey, profits from statins is I bet 5+ times more, so who needs a cheap competitor?

So if the government and the industry actually cared about the people they could advise to take Amla and RYR for less than $20 per month and we would have the same effect than taking Lescor, Zocor, Crestor, Lipitor, etc.

What say you to that argument?? If you want statins, so be it, but why can't we take it in natural form?

lol lescor was/is an ET member.

 

[El OchoCinco]

0.8%?

The study said 46 out of 5137 in the placebo group had a coronary event so dumb ass me wrote .008 with the % incorrectly. It is .8%.