U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2016, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
2,202 posts, read 1,318,643 times
Reputation: 1353

Advertisements

Physicians in general including Cardiologists are seemingly deliguent in updating their training plus
lack. the latest physiologic impact of statain drugs leaving we lay people to fen for ourselves even
stay well read . Here are my lay findings that with few exceptions are not recognized by physicians.


1. Cholesterol causes heart disease.... Baloney! Inflamation is the root cause

2. Continue taking statins even in the face of side effects ( joint issues, memory loss , GFR reduction
Kidney .damage ...another baloney!

3. Lowing cholesterol below around 125-150 reduces protective vessel cholesterol and removes
equally protective brain cholesterol potentially short circuiting neurons and transmitters until
you can't remember where your home is

Doctor:. Would you rather have a heart attack? A LIE and incompetence!! All the reason to ban statins unless over 300 (diet change alternative)

Note : Statins although having a newly discovered anti- inflamitory benefit they represent the most bogus irresponsible approved drug by the FDA and feed a glut by big pharma as corrupt an institution
you'll ever find as their R& D failed on all levels.

Final word: Ban Statins except for extreme cholesterol scenario'o, bring suit against incompetent MD's D0's prescribing this poison and bring suit against pharma.

 
Old 06-18-2016, 11:06 PM
 
104 posts, read 89,884 times
Reputation: 246
Please feel free to publish your research in a leading academic medical journal and then I might take you seriously.
 
Old 06-19-2016, 06:12 AM
 
Location: Texas
1,270 posts, read 1,251,386 times
Reputation: 1862
i rufuse that crap. I cant tell you how maney friends and family take that crap and they have bad leg cramps can barley walk around the stores.
As an observer friends and family are to lazy to change their diet. I had a friend who refuses to change his diet even after 4 heart attacks and a 300 cholestel reading.
When he pigs out on bbq or what he likes he say aww i just take an extra pill..

Also they have bad memories.. These are not old people. They range in age from forties to fifties.

Bottom line they are lazy. They refuse to take responsibility for their own health and they lack will power.
They think a pill will cure everything.The sad truth is their health is in decline and they lead a miserable life.

I have no sympathy for them.
 
Old 06-19-2016, 12:03 PM
 
18,775 posts, read 6,129,215 times
Reputation: 12658
I would not touch those statins either, one of the biggest scams against the people. My friend got involved in a class action lawsuit re: lipitor. She deals with 15+ yrs of nerve damage from statins due to the fear instilled in her by the doctors....GGGRRrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Keep trusting doctors and this is what you end up with.
 
Old 06-19-2016, 12:41 PM
 
6,996 posts, read 6,632,415 times
Reputation: 5274
The research came out a week or two ago.

High cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds, so treating with statins a 'waste of time'

The number 1 reason statins are no longer being recommended for prevention is the elevated risk of type 2 diabetes which raises your risk profile for heart disease.

Statins Linked to Raised Risk of Type 2 Diabetes
 
Old 06-19-2016, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Tucson, AZ
119 posts, read 77,306 times
Reputation: 221
You are right on. inflammation, in other words, oxidative stress, causes heart disease. Having high cholesterol is associated with heart disease because you have more lipids to get oxidized and cause damage.

This is also why lowering cholesterol does not stop heart attack risk.
 
Old 06-19-2016, 06:01 PM
 
4,618 posts, read 10,497,588 times
Reputation: 10291
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro View Post
The research came out a week or two ago.

High cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds, so treating with statins a 'waste of time'

The number 1 reason statins are no longer being recommended for prevention is the elevated risk of type 2 diabetes which raises your risk profile for heart disease.

Statins Linked to Raised Risk of Type 2 Diabetes
1. That wasn't "research" or a "study" you posted, it was a newspaper article about the study...world of difference.

From the article you posted:

"There is nothing in the current paper to support the author’s suggestions that the studies they reviewed cast doubt on the idea that LDL Cholesterol is a major cause of heart disease or that guidelines on LDL reduction in the elderly need re-valuating,” a spokesman said."

2. What are you talking about "number 1 reason statins are no longer recommended for prevention...."

Statins ARE absolutely still recommended for individuals that meet treatment recommendations based on a number of factors...

2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults
 
Old 06-19-2016, 06:07 PM
 
4,618 posts, read 10,497,588 times
Reputation: 10291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven_on_a_Coyote View Post
You are right on. inflammation, in other words, oxidative stress, causes heart disease. Having high cholesterol is associated with heart disease because you have more lipids to get oxidized and cause damage.

This is also why lowering cholesterol does not stop heart attack risk.
Is that so???

I'll show you my data....

"The present results show that reduction of LDL cholesterol with statin therapy significantly reduced the risk of major vascular events in individuals with 5-year risk lower than 10% (in whom the mean risks were 2·6% for major coronary events plus 3% for other major vascular events), even in those with no previous history of vascular disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (panel)."
The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials

"Further reductions in LDL cholesterol safely produce definite further reductions in the incidence of heart attack, of revascularisation, and of ischaemic stroke, with each 1·0 mmol/L reduction reducing the annual rate of these major vascular events by just over a fifth. There was no evidence of any threshold within the cholesterol range studied, suggesting that reduction of LDL cholesterol by 2-3 mmol/L would reduce risk by about 40-50%."
Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. - PubMed - NCBI

You show me yours......
 
Old 06-19-2016, 06:33 PM
 
6,996 posts, read 6,632,415 times
Reputation: 5274
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz View Post
1. That wasn't "research" or a "study" you posted, it was a newspaper article about the study...world of difference.

From the article you posted:

"There is nothing in the current paper to support the author’s suggestions that the studies they reviewed cast doubt on the idea that LDL Cholesterol is a major cause of heart disease or that guidelines on LDL reduction in the elderly need re-valuating,” a spokesman said."

2. What are you talking about "number 1 reason statins are no longer recommended for prevention...."

Statins ARE absolutely still recommended for individuals that meet treatment recommendations based on a number of factors...

2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults
The research study has been out since last fall. News articles about it have been appearing for awhile now.

Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review -- Ravnskov et al. 6 (6) -- BMJ Open

I'm going by what I was told by my cardiologist.

The CAC heart scan is used instead as the primary measure as to whether one is at risk.
 
Old 06-19-2016, 08:25 PM
 
2,484 posts, read 1,725,769 times
Reputation: 4240
I have some concerns about this statin business. Necessary for some, but not for all.


First off, the old reference ranges for decades for total cholesterol were 150 - 210 or 220, or thereabouts. Under 140 was only seen in chronically sick people (typically AIDS patients, and those with other severe debilitating diseases). Nowadays, they'll feed people statins to get them down to 120 or below. I have not read anything convincing that this is entirely safe or helps anything.


That old reference range was established in part, based on actual incidence of atherosclerosis seen on numerous autopsies. The more recent finding of inflammation contributing to atherogenesis is interesting, and has some very well done studies (something you must consider these days). This is probably significant in atherosclerosis in people with formerly "low end of reference range" total cholesterols - it's much less common, but does happen. I'm living proof.


My cholesterol in recent years hovered around 150 - 160; wasn't even up to 150 until about age 50. During that time my HDL was 65, always. HDL was determined long ago to be an anti-atherosclerosis agent if it was over 60 or so. High HDL has a negative risk for atherosclerosis - that is...when you take the inflammation issue away. My BP was always quite on the low side (110/55 typically). I've always been HWP.


Now on statins for a stroke and severe coronary artery disease (talk about a shock) my total cholesterol is now 115 and, understandedly, my HDL is now 42 (proportionately lowered, but not considered "protective.")


I have had two bad episodes of systemic inflammatory disease (of uncertain type) which has caused severe endstage arthritis in several joints, but no one wants to treat it (except for joint replacement).


I am very convinced that some kind of inflammatory process is involved in some cases of atherosclerosis, particularly those cases where hypercholesterolemia was not significant, and HDL was high. I'm now wondering if aspirin (the classic of ALL anti-inflammatory agents) works other than by preventing clots - its important to note that platelets contain a lot of functional agents involved in inflammation; they're not just there to make clots. Platelet inhibition may be more important than they think in preventing atherosclerosis.


Unfortunately, inflammation is a broad process with many different types of secondary effects, not all of them obvious; probably some not even yet known.

Last edited by TwinbrookNine; 06-19-2016 at 08:43 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top