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.
fauve, I'll agree that article covers a lot of the territory. I've read some of the background cites, as well as other work. It does a nice job of summarizing some of the more complex reports.
A lot of people have been depending on the wisdom of doctors who have been "indoctrinated" by the sales forces of the drug companies, while those doctors are otherwise pressed for time and lack easy access to reasonable outside information. I'm a bit puzzled at the non-response and back-down I just got when I pressed a few issues. Is it possible that I made another doctor reconsider a position on the subject? I know of two that I have directly influenced, by presenting them with outside material and simply asking them to read and give an opinion. Statins are a house of cards that are easily blown over with a little investigation.
lol, after I railed into my mother that at least if she was going to take statins, she had better be taking coenzyme q10, she mentioned it to her doctor. His response, yeah, I take coenzq10 along with it too. Of course he had never suggested this to her himself....
Azriverfan wrote
that cholesterol medication can reduce one's risk of developing colon cancer as well but more time needs to be devoted to that before that claim can officially be made
So how come prestatin I never had any polyps? 5 years into them I had FIVE precancerous? I was so stunned that I thought my doctor mislabeled/switched someone else's with mine. I got off statins shortly after that one and the next test I only had one very small polyp.
This is not meant to be argumentative, I would just like to know. I was SO stunned with the 5 precancerous one that I racked my brain for months as to what changed, what could have caused that.. The only thing that changed was, I was on statin drugs and had lowered my cholesterol. Off the statin, I was amazed with the results and very pleased with them.
May I also ask you as I have asked many times, how come doctors do not recognize a person who has what is called the "statin shuffle"? I recognize it in someone and everyone I ask if they are on a statin drug, they answer "yes.. why?", a 100% "yes" every time I ask. I recognize it because that is how I walked on it. Do you recognize it?
For a lot of us, the benifits do not outweigh the risk and doctors need to wake up to the damage these drugs are doing to some of us and figure out how to treat us so we can recover. I have been off of them for 4 years and still paying the price for taking them.
The incidence of polyps INCREASES with age. The likelihood of finding polyps increases as you grow older. So it's quite likely you'd have polyps even with NO medications on board.
The risk of ALL cancers increases greatly with age.
Hmph.
My dad died of colon cancer, my mom died of a heart attack.
Looks like I am in trouble one way or another!
Quote:
Originally Posted by susan42
Soem people just have high cholesterol-even if they are fit and not overweight-it's kind of "built in" unfortunately.
I would could back on the dairy and shrimp-both high
Also use extra virgin olive oil, eat avacados and porridge!
Yes.
I can try to cut back on the shrimp, and be more careful with the dairy.
I LOVE olive oil.
I am one of those weird people who actually like healthy, unprocessed food.
I don't have much of a sweet tooth and hate high fructose corn syrup.
But obviously something is going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fauve
This is the best article Ive ever read on this subject:
Thanks for sharing.
This caught my eye: • If you are a healthy woman with high cholesterol, there is no proof that taking statins reduces your risk of heart attack or death.
FWIW, my HDLs are actually in the good range.
Thanks for the article.
lol, after I railed into my mother that at least if she was going to take statins, she had better be taking coenzyme q10, she mentioned it to her doctor. His response, yeah, I take coenzq10 along with it too. Of course he had never suggested this to her himself....
So how come prestatin I never had any polyps? 5 years into them I had FIVE precancerous? I was so stunned that I thought my doctor mislabeled/switched someone else's with mine. I got off statins shortly after that one and the next test I only had one very small polyp.
This is not meant to be argumentative, I would just like to know. I was SO stunned with the 5 precancerous one that I racked my brain for months as to what changed, what could have caused that.. The only thing that changed was, I was on statin drugs and had lowered my cholesterol. Off the statin, I was amazed with the results and very pleased with them.
May I also ask you as I have asked many times, how come doctors do not recognize a person who has what is called the "statin shuffle"? I recognize it in someone and everyone I ask if they are on a statin drug, they answer "yes.. why?", a 100% "yes" every time I ask. I recognize it because that is how I walked on it. Do you recognize it?
For a lot of us, the benifits do not outweigh the risk and doctors need to wake up to the damage these drugs are doing to some of us and figure out how to treat us so we can recover. I have been off of them for 4 years and still paying the price for taking them.
ViralMD answered it correctly. Age increases your risk of developing all cancers. There is no confirmed data to state that statins reduce risk of colon cancer. The "statin shuffle"...interesting How do you know with 100% certainty that the statins caused your problems? I know it's popular for patients to theorize and blame medication when the truth is the cause is unknown.
Last edited by azriverfan.; 09-23-2009 at 09:01 AM..
I've read this article. Interestingly, he still endorses what we advocate with regard to total cholesterol, HDL and LDL numbers. Look at #1 under "Testing for Cardiovascular Risk Factors"
1. Total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides. Your total cholesterol should be under 200. Your triglycerides should be under 100. Your HDL should be over 60. Your LDL should be ideally under 80. Your ratio of total cholesterol to HDL should be less than 3.0. Your ratio of triglycerides to HDL should be no greater than 4, which can indicate insulin resistance if elevated
fauve, I'll agree that article covers a lot of the territory. I've read some of the background cites, as well as other work. It does a nice job of summarizing some of the more complex reports.
A lot of people have been depending on the wisdom of doctors who have been "indoctrinated" by the sales forces of the drug companies, while those doctors are otherwise pressed for time and lack easy access to reasonable outside information. I'm a bit puzzled at the non-response and back-down I just got when I pressed a few issues. Is it possible that I made another doctor reconsider a position on the subject? I know of two that I have directly influenced, by presenting them with outside material and simply asking them to read and give an opinion. Statins are a house of cards that are easily blown over with a little investigation.
You haven't made me reconsider my position. I just know that individuals like yourself feel very strongly about your position and there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. We can agree to disagree. I don't agree with your theory about the FDA and the drug companies conspiring together. I provided you with a clear account of Phizer having torcetrepib never making it to market because it failed clinical trials. If the FDA was truly in the back pocket of the drug companies you like insist then this drug would have made it to market since it would have been extremely lucrative for Phizer. And by lucrative, it would have arguably been the most profitable drug it would have produced in over a decade since it worked on the principle of increasing HDL that was supposed to be safe to alongside statins. I also think the alternative medicine industry attempts to demonize traditional medicine to lure unsuspecting and desperate patients who have failed traditional medicine. Your industry doesn't like regulation because it obviously hurts your wallet. Furthermore, you criticize traditional medication but fail to provide any evidence to support your treatments. There are no large sample sized randomized double blind studies that have been followed for years to support your claims. I've had these debates before and every time, the opportunity comes to present research, they will provide a case report or a small sample sized and biased study that hasn't been published in any reputable journal. Instead of responding to these challenges by explaining those discrepancies or providing the type of study we want, your side will often respond with further conspiracy laced accusations like "Well those doctors just don't want to listen to us because they are in the back pocket of Big Pharma."
Last edited by azriverfan.; 09-23-2009 at 09:18 AM..
You haven't made me reconsider my position. I just know that individuals like yourself feel very strongly about your position and there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. We can agree to disagree.
Fair enough. Back atcha
I don't agree with your theory about the FDA and the drug companies conspiring together. I provided you with a clear account of Phizer having torcetrepib never making it to market because it failed clinical trials. If the FDA was truly in the back pocket of the drug companies you like insist then this drug would have made it to market since it would have been extremely lucrative for Phizer. And by lucrative, it would have arguably been the most profitable drug it would have produced in over a decade since it worked on the principle of increasing HDL that was supposed to be safe to alongside statins.
Stop right there. That is a blatant misrepresentation. If you are going to say what I stated get it right. I NEVER claimed any conspiracy theory, and I am very angry with you for either not reading for comprehension or making an intentional misrepresentation. I would like an apology.
I also think the alternative medicine industry attempts to demonize traditional medicine to lure unsuspecting and desperate patients who have failed traditional medicine. Your industry doesn't like regulation because it obviously hurts your wallet.
MY industry? MY industry? WTF? I once worked in a health food store over 30 years ago. Not only is this getting ridiculous, but I'm now beginning to suspect a Freudian slip and that YOU are not being totally honest in how money gets in YOUR wallet. "..unsuspecting and desperate patients who have failed traditional medicine." How does one fail traditional medicine? Is there a quiz? The sentence makes more sense if it is said properly - unsuspecting and desperate patients who have tried traditional medicine and found that it failed them. Am I denying that their charlatans who take advantage of people like this? Nope. Not at all. I've also seen mainstream doctors attempt heroic measures in contradiction of the living wills of unsuspecting patients.
Furthermore, you criticize traditional medication but fail to provide any evidence to support your treatments. There are no large sample sized randomized double blind studies that have been followed for years to support your claims. I've had these debates before and every time, the opportunity comes to present research, they will provide a case report or a small sample sized and biased study that hasn't been published in any reputable journal. Instead of responding to these challenges by explaining those discrepancies or providing the type of study we want, your side will often respond with further conspiracy laced accusations like "Well those doctors just don't want to listen to us because they are in the back pocket of Big Pharma."
I don't speak for anyone but myself. I never have claimed anything but that. Are there loonies in the alternative medical fields? Of course. THere are also loonies in mainstream medicine. I had one doctor foisted on me by an insurance plan that I used to call dingleberry because he was about as bright as one. I also had another doctor who was drummed out of his practice for medicare fraud and served prison time. If you want to paint with broad brushes, I've got a few as well.
"There are no large sample sized randomized double blind studies that have been followed for years to support your claims. I've had these debates before and every time, the opportunity comes to present research, they will provide a case report or a small sample sized and biased study that hasn't been published in any reputable journal."
Ah, a variation on the old "How many times a month do you beat your wife?" argument. Can you point me to a double-blind study published by a reputable journal that drinking water prevents death by dehydration? How about a double-blind study published by a reputable journal that feet do not grow on the head? I love to expose the idiocy of such "we have to do research on that" to try to validate the obvious. On one hand you claim that red rice yeast has a statin in it and should be banned, and yet you don't offer a double blind study from a reputable journal to back up your claim and show any damage from use that is greater than taking a patented drug of the same substance.
Forget the apology. It wouldn't be worth anything anyway.
Statins are NOT traditional medication. They are not old enough to be traditional and they don't medicate a significant condition with more than a minimal amount of effectiveness. I could have a better chance of winning a dice throw a few times in a row than benefiting from statins. We could do a double blind study on that if you would like.
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.
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.
