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)
 
Old 08-09-2018, 04:39 PM
 
3,439 posts, read 934,910 times
Reputation: 2601

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003 View Post
This thread made me think of this old joke:

I recently picked a new primary care doctor.

After two visits and exhaustive Lab tests, she said I was doing fairly well for my age (I am seventy).

A little concerned about that comment, I couldn't resist asking her, 'Do you think I'll live to be 80?'

She asked, 'Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer, wine or hard liquor?'

'Oh no,' I replied. 'I'm not doing drugs, either!'

Then she asked, 'Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs?'

'I said, 'Not much... My former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!'

'Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, boating, sailing, hiking, or bicycling?'

'No, I don't,' I said.

She asked, 'Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of sex?'

'No', I said...

She looked at me and said, 'Then, why do you even care?'
Ok, it's funny (heard it before though), but it is not related to this thread. I have never said people should be health fanatics trying to live forever, and not enjoying life. Just that they should use a little common sense, and pay attention to lifestyle advice.

Not all lifestyle advice is right, and it can be contradictory. Just get an idea of what different experts (mainstream and non-mainstream) are saying.

We know smoking is bad, at least for some people, if not most. We know exercise is good, and that processed food is bad.

You don't have to feel deprived just because you don't smoke or eat processed food.

 
Old 08-09-2018, 04:56 PM
 
3,439 posts, read 934,910 times
Reputation: 2601
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.co...916-016-0550-5

This interesting -- research has shown that patients report side effects just as often on placebo (no drug) as on statins. This finding was repeated loudly across the internet, showing that statin side effects are just imaginary. But according to this article, they did not adequately look at the most common side effect complaints -- muscle and cognitive problems. WHA?? Another example of the games drug companies play.

"a recent article suggesting that in industry-sponsored RCTs there are no significant differences in the rates of adverse effects between active statins versus placebo groups is unhelpful [3]. This simply adds ‘false precision to biased estimates’ [40]. These trials have not adequately assessed the most commonly reported side effects reported by patients, notably muscle pains and cognitive impairment. The head of the CTT Collaboration has recently conceded that they did not assess for all possible side effects [41]. As every practising clinician knows, such side effects are common when patients are actually asked."
 
Old 08-09-2018, 05:00 PM
 
3,439 posts, read 934,910 times
Reputation: 2601
"Concentrating on LDL-lowering alone as an end in itself might therefore be counterproductive. Indeed, insulin resistance may emerge as the single most important determinant of coronary artery disease."

That's what I said.
 
Old 08-09-2018, 06:18 PM
 
3,052 posts, read 1,216,716 times
Reputation: 6078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
I keep having to repeat that I am not criticizing all drugs. It is completely off topic to explain that some people need certain drugs to survive and be healthy. We all know that.

To go from there to the idea that drugs are good, the more the better -- that is the fallacy I am criticizing.
I am looking at the topic again “Longevity the facts” - and it is quite on topic. You keep bringing the topic around to statins in most threads, although the topic is not just about statins. It is about longevity generally. It is drugs like synthroid that have helped with longevity because people who would likely have died or had serious issues due to poor thyroid function (which is more than 5% of the population) now have an easy way to be relatively healthy.
 
Old 08-09-2018, 06:41 PM
 
3,439 posts, read 934,910 times
Reputation: 2601
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict View Post
I am looking at the topic again “Longevity the facts” - and it is quite on topic. You keep bringing the topic around to statins in most threads, although the topic is not just about statins. It is about longevity generally. It is drugs like synthroid that have helped with longevity because people who would likely have died or had serious issues due to poor thyroid function (which is more than 5% of the population) now have an easy way to be relatively healthy.
I had actually meant that too much faith in modern medicine has resulted in extreme over-use of certain drugs.

I understand that you are trying to balance my criticisms with stories about how drugs can be useful.

But I started out trying to balance our society's over-confidence in modern medicine and its drugs.

I kept bringing up statins because they are the number one drug in use today. We have a serious health crisis caused by the modern lifestyle, but instead of focusing on lifestyle our medical profession is focused on statin drugs, which they consider to be miraculous.

When you look carefully at the evidence, it's kind of amazing how so many people have been fooled. The more I read, the more interesting it became. And there are several commenters here at CD who are so intensely pro-drug, and pro-mainstream medicine, that they won't even look at any of the evidence I have shown. So I kept on finding more.

All this has confirmed what I already thought -- that there are big problems with the cholesterol hypothesis, and with statin drugs. But now I think I could explain it simply to anyone. I think I more or less understand how the confusion got started, and why it continues.

Statins are relevant to questions about health and longevity in our society. They are intended for treating our most common and most dangerous diseases. Millions of people count on them for protection. And yet the evidence for the safety and effectiveness ranges from weak to nonexistent.

But statins do work for people with genetic high cholesterol, which is rare. This is probably the basis for the whole confusion. There are people whose heart disease is caused by cholesterol. But it does NOT follow that cholesterol causes heart disease in anyone else.

In fact, as I have explained, and provided references for, insulin resistance is a much more common cause of heart disease. Giving statins to people with insulin resistance does not make sense, yet that is what is done most frequently.

About half of Americans have type 2 diabetes or pre-diabetes (insulin resistance). Most people who are taking statins are probably in that category. And there is almost no chance that statins will improve their health or prevent them from dying.
 
Old 08-10-2018, 03:52 PM
 
3,439 posts, read 934,910 times
Reputation: 2601
I hope no one is confused by this anymore. If your medical doctor has recommended you take statin drugs to prevent heart disease, based on certain risk factors, you should try to understand how much you will benefit from taking them.

Your doctor is probably basing this recommendation on research that evaluates how much taking statins for 5 years will reduce your risk of heart disease. Maybe the reduction is determined to be somewhere between 10 and 30 percent. That sounds pretty good, and if your doctor seems concerned about your high cholesterol, you might feel taking statin drugs for the rest of your life is a sensible decision.

But wait! Have you forgotten what I explained here about relative risk reduction?

Research on prevention of heart disease in patients who don't have it shows that about 250 patients have to take statins for 5 years to prevent one case of heart disease. In the control group, who did not get statins, maybe 2 patients got heart disease, while in the statin group only 1 got heart disease.

So the risk has actually been reduced by LESS THAN ONE PERCENT!!

Ok, well one person did benefit, so maybe ... well ... maybe the doctor is right?

But keep in mind, please, that we can't even be sure that one in 250 people will benefit from taking statins. It's just a probability. And no one gets to see the drug companies' raw data, so we have to trust them (HAHAHAHAHA).

It's a tiny, miniscule difference. It might have reached statistical significance in studies with thousands of subjects. But no way does that have clinical significance.

And then there are the adverse side effects, which we really don't know much about because the drug company research tries to minimize them.

If you believe that evolution did a poor job of "designing" life, then you might think throwing chemicals into your body can't hurt and might help. If, on the other hand, you appreciate the intricacy and complexity, and sheer intelligence of nature, then you might want to think twice about interfering with life's basic processes. And cholesterol is very basic, extremely important for every cell of your body.

And it isn't just cholesterol these drugs interfere with. There are complex chains of processes that the drugs can derail in ways no one can really guess.

If you have extremely high cholesterol because of genetic defects, you might need statins. If you already have heart disease, it is possible statins might be helpful.

Otherwise, you have no sane reason for taking them. But you probably are! Most people over age 50 or 60 are recommended to take them. So depending on how much you trust the medical and drug industries, you very well might be damaging your future health with statins, for no benefit.
 
Old 08-10-2018, 05:34 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,160 posts, read 6,347,005 times
Reputation: 12735
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003 View Post
This thread made me think of this old joke:

I recently picked a new primary care doctor.

After two visits and exhaustive Lab tests, she said I was doing fairly well for my age (I am seventy).

A little concerned about that comment, I couldn't resist asking her, 'Do you think I'll live to be 80?'

She asked, 'Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer, wine or hard liquor?'

'Oh no,' I replied. 'I'm not doing drugs, either!'

Then she asked, 'Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs?'

'I said, 'Not much... My former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!'

'Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, boating, sailing, hiking, or bicycling?'

'No, I don't,' I said.

She asked, 'Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of sex?'

'No', I said...

She looked at me and said, 'Then, why do you even care?'

Kinda reminds me of the old saying that going without all those "vices" might not actually increase one's lifespan, but sure might make it SEEM longer.
 
Old 08-10-2018, 05:40 PM
 
3,439 posts, read 934,910 times
Reputation: 2601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travelassie View Post
Kinda reminds me of the old saying that going without all those "vices" might not actually increase one's lifespan, but sure might make it SEEM longer.
I don't think there is any need to be a fanatic and think about everything you put in your mouth. That's no way to live, in my opinion, and it won't guarantee good health anyway. We live in a very toxic environment and there is no way to avoid it all.

I have known people who seem to spend every minute of their lives trying to prevent sickness and death. And then it does become like the joke -- if life is no fun at all, why bother?

This thread was NOT intended to advocate life extension and all that BS. I have no interest in any of that.

This thread is simply to point out some fallacies we are all being exposed to, thanks to the drug industry.

Yes, you should improve your lifestyle, because chances are your lifestyle really sucks. That is a fact of modern life. Exercise has to be planned, because most of us don't work physically, and most of our friends don't exercise, so we have to be VERY DETERMINED about it.

Don't live on fast food, and be wary of anything processed. Don't eat a lot of white sugar or white flour.

People can be very ignorant about the health basics, so make sure you learn a little.

And I hope some of you will actually read this thread, because it goes against most of what your doctor will tell you, and what you see on the drug TV ads. Lots of deception and BS going on that everyone should be aware of.
 
Old 08-10-2018, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,533 posts, read 26,146,877 times
Reputation: 26532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
I hope no one is confused by this anymore. If your medical doctor has recommended you take statin drugs to prevent heart disease, based on certain risk factors, you should try to understand how much you will benefit from taking them.

Your doctor is probably basing this recommendation on research that evaluates how much taking statins for 5 years will reduce your risk of heart disease. Maybe the reduction is determined to be somewhere between 10 and 30 percent. That sounds pretty good, and if your doctor seems concerned about your high cholesterol, you might feel taking statin drugs for the rest of your life is a sensible decision.

But wait! Have you forgotten what I explained here about relative risk reduction?

Research on prevention of heart disease in patients who don't have it shows that about 250 patients have to take statins for 5 years to prevent one case of heart disease. In the control group, who did not get statins, maybe 2 patients got heart disease, while in the statin group only 1 got heart disease.
Source of that 250 patient figure? Because that number varies with the population at risk.

Why do you ignore the figures I gave you earlier? If you feel they are incorrect, explain why.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0071769/

"A recent Cochrane systematic review identified 18 RCTs on statin therapy versus placebo or control in primary prevention258. The number of participants was 56,934 (60.3% men, 39.7% women), and the studies were conducted between 1994 and 2008. The median level of CVD risk in the control group was 15% over 10 years. Table 59* details the NNTs for all-cause mortality, CVD outcomes and diabetes over 5 years. The review reported that rates of overall adverse events (17%) and stopping treatment (12%) were similar in the 2 groups. The incidence of myalgia, rhabdomyolysis, liver, enzyme elevation and renal dysfunction did not differ between the groups. The authors concluded that the benefits of statins in primary prevention outweigh the risks of serious life threatening illness."

Table 59*:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedh...ort=objectonly

NNT

All-cause mortality: 138
Total CVD events: 49
Total CHD events: 88
Total stroke: 155
Revascularisation [bypass surgery]: 96

Quote:
So the risk has actually been reduced by LESS THAN ONE PERCENT!!

Ok, well one person did benefit, so maybe ... well ... maybe the doctor is right?

But keep in mind, please, that we can't even be sure that one in 250 people will benefit from taking statins. It's just a probability. And no one gets to see the drug companies' raw data, so we have to trust them (HAHAHAHAHA).
You still conflate percentage point reductions with percent reduction.

They are not the same.

A study may not have been done using raw data. Meta-analyses may not do so because the amount of data can be overwhelming. That does not mean no one can see the data.

Quote:
It's a tiny, miniscule difference. It might have reached statistical significance in studies with thousands of subjects. But no way does that have clinical significance.
The clinical significance for the individual varies with the risk for that individual patient. For some with higher risk estimates a 50% reduction will be very significant, if it takes the risk for 30 chances in a hundred of having any cardiovascular event in the next 5 years to 15.

Quote:
And then there are the adverse side effects, which we really don't know much about because the drug company research tries to minimize them.
Those will come out eventually. No way to hide them.

Quote:
If you believe that evolution did a poor job of "designing" life, then you might think throwing chemicals into your body can't hurt and might help. If, on the other hand, you appreciate the intricacy and complexity, and sheer intelligence of nature, then you might want to think twice about interfering with life's basic processes. And cholesterol is very basic, extremely important for every cell of your body.
Evolution did do a poor design job in some ways. Why don't humans have wings?

I would not have designed the way the human female urinary, reproductive, and GI systems terminate, for example. They are too close together.

Quote:
And it isn't just cholesterol these drugs interfere with. There are complex chains of processes that the drugs can derail in ways no one can really guess.
There are scientists who know what those "complex chains of processes" are even if you do not.

Quote:
If you have extremely high cholesterol because of genetic defects, you might need statins. If you already have heart disease, it is possible statins might be helpful.
What is the magic cholesterol level that you feel justifies the use of a statin?

If you have known atherosclerotic heart disease there is no "might be helpful" about it. If you have side effects your doctor will try to find the statin and dose that minimizes them.

Quote:
Otherwise, you have no sane reason for taking them. But you probably are! Most people over age 50 or 60 are recommended to take them. So depending on how much you trust the medical and drug industries, you very well might be damaging your future health with statins, for no benefit.
The recommendation for use of a statin is based on a consideration of all risk factors, not just age.
 
Old 08-10-2018, 10:25 PM
 
3,439 posts, read 934,910 times
Reputation: 2601
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post



You still conflate percentage point reductions with percent reduction.

They are not the same.
You don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post

A study may not have been done using raw data. Meta-analyses may not do so because the amount of data can be overwhelming. That does not mean no one can see the data.
I know what a meta-analysis is. The point is that no one can see the raw data for studies that are NOT meta-analyse, if they are done by drug companies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The clinical significance for the individual varies with the risk for that individual patient. For some with higher risk estimates a 50% reduction will be very significant, if it takes the risk for 30 chances in a hundred of having any cardiovascular event in the next 5 years to 15.
You KNOW that I was talking about primary prevention.





Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Evolution did do a poor design job in some ways. Why don't humans have wings?

I would not have designed the way the human female urinary, reproductive, and GI systems terminate, for example. They are too close together.
YOU would not have designed it that way! I can't even ... never mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
There are scientists who know what those "complex chains of processes" are even if you do not.
Most of it is not understood, not even by YOU.

Instead of responding to anything I actually say, you write these long meaningless comments. You hope to confuse everyone.
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