Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 143

Thread: Big pHARMa knows people are waking up about Statins...

  1. #1

    Thumbs down Big pHARMa knows people are waking up about Statins...

    So they invent another way to use them.

    Statins slash risk of death by cancer: They slow tumour growth by up to 50% reveal major studies

    Statins shrink your brain and cause brain damage and destroys muscle tissue and other really bad side effects Sure you won't die of cancer, you'll die from what statins do to you body! You are much better off with alternative approaches to cancer than this!
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Statins and cancer

    Statins and cancer

    Dr. Malcolm Kendrick

    (Ho hum, not again)

    A number of people have written to me pointing out an outbreak of mass hysteria in the UK press about statins protecting against cancer. I suspect this hysteria has been repeated around the world. Here are the headlines from the eponymous Daily Mail

    Statins slash risk of death by cancer: They slow tumour growth

    by up to 50% reveal major studies

    Experts say there is ‘overwhelming’ evidence that statins can treat cancer

    Study showed they cut death rates for bone cancer patients by 55 per cent

    GPs should make patients aware of pills’ new benefits, researchers say

    I have been aware of claims that statins protect against cancer for many years. They pop up on a pretty regular basis. I have tended to ignore them on the basis that, anyone who is stupid enough to believe such research, deserves all the statins they can get.

    However, such is the overblown hype this time, that I feel the need to rouse myself from my slumber, and explain why this is just complete rubbish. I don’t need to read the original studies to do this. I have read enough of these over the years. I hope this does not sound too arrogant, but I will happily apologise if any single thing I write here proves to be wrong.

    Not randomised controlled studies

    The studies quoted will not have been randomised and controlled. By which I mean they did not take, say, forty thousand people and split them into two, randomised, groups. One group to take statins the other to take a placebo. Then wait, say, five years to see what difference there was.

    These studies will have been observational. By which I mean you look at people taking statins and see what happens to them vs. people who do not take statins. Such studies can show associations between two variables. But they cannot prove causality. (They cannot provide ‘overwhelming’ evidence of anything either). This is basic science, page one, paragraph one.

    Just to provide one example of this. In 1987 a major observational study showed that women taking HRT had a more than forty per cent reduction in heart disease. At which point it was recommended that women took HRT to protect themselves against heart disease. This was, in fact, written into the guidelines of the American College of Physicians. To fail to prescribe HRT was considered medical malpractice in the USA.1

    Continued...
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  4. #3
    Time for the new and improved Statins 2.0? Only slightly more expensive and with a only a few more iffy side effects.

  5. #4
    OMFG - the guy who wrote that second article knows even less about clinical research than I do. Note the same old pattern - no evidence to back up the claim, no science of his own to make a point, only a lot of shrieking about how "their" science can't be trusted.

    Why isn't he running the study that he is insisting on? I know two answers without even looking, but I want to see the bad science apologists try to defend this crap first.

  6. #5
    So keep taking your statins then.

    Study Reveals Statins Not Very Effective or Safe

    March 18, 2015
    By Dr. Mercola

    Many have been successfully brainwashed into believing that their cholesterol levels must reach a certain set low point in order to avoid heart disease.

    As a result, one in four Americans aged 45 and over take cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, despite the fact that the risks are very high and side effects grossly underreported.

    Statin drugs work by blocking the enzyme in your liver that is responsible for making cholesterol. Yes, your liver makes cholesterol because you need cholesterol and it is essential for your very survival.

    Cholesterol helps produce cell membranes, and in addition it also plays a role in the production of hormones (including the sex hormones testosterone, progesterone, and estrogen) and bile acids that help you digest fat.

    Cholesterol is also essential for your brain, which contains about 25 percent of the cholesterol in your body. It is critical for synapse formation, i.e. the connections between your neurons, which allow you to think, learn new things, and form memories…

    Statin drugs are effective and do to lower cholesterol, but as your levels fall you may assume that is proof that you’re getting healthier, that you’re becoming well. But that would be far from the truth.

    There is far more that goes into your risk of heart disease than your cholesterol levels… and there is evidence showing that statins may actually make your heart health worse.

    What’s more, if you take a statin drug, or know someone who does, you should absolutely be aware of recent studies that show these drugs are not very effective or safe.

    Statistical Deception Creates the ‘Appearance’ That Statins Are Safe and Effective

    A new report published in the Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology concluded that statin advocates used a statistical tool called relative risk reduction (RRR) to amplify statins’ trivial beneficial effects.1

    The directors of clinical trials, according to the report, have also succeeded in minimizing the significance of a large number of adverse effects of statin treatment.

    So how are statistics being used to deceive you about statins’ effectiveness? If you look at absolute risk, statin drugs benefit just 1 percent of the population. This means that out of 100 people treated with the drugs, one person will have one less heart attack.

    This doesn’t sound so impressive… so statin supporters use a different statistic called relative risk. Just by making this statistical slight of hand, statins suddenly become beneficial for 30-50 percent of the population.

    As for side effects, the report notes that side effects are more common than the media and medical conferences report, and the modest benefits of the drugs do not even come close to outweighing the risks, which included increased rates of:

    Cancer
    Cataracts
    Diabetes
    Cognitive impairment
    Musculoskeletal disorders


    Continued...
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  7. #6
    Statin Drug Scandal: Cholesterol-lowering Drug Researchers Start Backtracking



    Health Impact News Editor Comments

    The cholesterol-lowering statin drug empire continues to crumble. This past Sunday (February 15, 2015) the Sunday Express in the UK published a headline story stating that Oxford professor Dr. Rory Collins, whose research had been used to support putting millions of patients on statin drugs, was reassessing the data behind those studies for possible drug side effects they might have missed previously.

    According to the Express:

    Although the original research looked at the effect of statins on the heart and considered cancer risks it did not examine other side effects.

    A Pharmaceutical Scandal that Can No Longer Be Hidden?

    This announcement by Dr. Collins is stunning, to say the least, and points to a massive cover-up and scandal related to statin drugs.

    In 2014, Dr. Collins supported calls in the UK to put more people on statin drugs. However, he met with some opposition, and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a couple of articles documenting some of the side effects of statin drugs, which would call into question new government guidelines that would encourage physicians to put more patients on the already popular class of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Statins are the world’s best selling pharmaceutical drugs of all time, with no close competitors.

    Dr. Collins criticized the BMJ articles, and demanded that they retract them. According to Dr. Malcolm Kendrick:

    He stated that these articles were irresponsible, worse than Andrew Wakefield’s work on the MMR vaccine, and that thousands would die if they were scared off taking their statins by such articles. (Source.)

    An independent review panel set up by Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, looked at the BMJ’s data and rejected his demands.

    Dr. Collins is head of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration, and as Dr. Kendrick points out:

    you should know that for a number of years, people have been trying to get Rory Collins to release the data he and his unit (the CTT), holds on statins. [The CTT was set up purely to get hold of and review all the data on statins, it has no other function].

    He has stubbornly refused to let anyone see anything. He claims he signed non-disclosure contracts with pharmaceutical companies who send him the data, so he cannot allow anyone else access. Please remember that some of the trials he holds data on were done over thirty years ago, and the drugs are long off patent.

    Now, amazingly, after running the CTT for nearly twenty years, Collins claims that ‘he has not seen the full data on side-effects.’ In an e-mail to the Sunday Express he stated that ‘his team had assessed the effects of statins on heart disease and cancer but not other side effects such as muscle pain.’

    Let that statement percolate for a moment or two. Then try to make sense of it. So, they have got the data, but not bothered to look at it? Or they have not got it – which surely must be the case if he hasn’t even seen it. Give us a clue. Either way, Collins states he has not assessed it. (Source.)

    So why this sudden about face by Dr. Collins in admitting the data on statin drugs needs to be reassessed due to potential side effects not previously studied? Could the thousands of lawsuits currently being filed in the United States against Lipitor, the best-selling drug in the history of the world, for causing diabetes, be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of serious side effects that are now about to become public?

    Continued...
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  8. #7
    Safety, life-saving efficacy of statins have been exaggerated, says scientist

    Date:
    February 20, 2015
    Source:
    University of South Florida (USF Health)
    Summary:
    Statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs prescribed to prevent heart attacks, are not as effective nor as safe as we have been led to believe, researchers say. Statins produce a dramatic reduction in cholesterol levels, but have failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes, they add, stating that 'statistical deception' has been used to inflate claims about their effectiveness.


    Hailed as miracle drugs when they hit the market two decades ago, statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs prescribed to prevent heart attacks, are not as effective nor as safe as we have been led to believe, say Dr. David M. Diamond, a professor of psychology, molecular pharmacology and physiology at the University of South Florida, and Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, an independent health researcher and an expert in cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.

    According to Diamond and Ravnskov, statins produce a dramatic reduction in cholesterol levels, but they have "failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes." They further state that the many studies touting the efficacy of statins have not only neglected to account for the numerous serious adverse side effects of the drugs, but supporters of statins have used what the authors refer to as "statistical deception" to make inflated claims about their effectiveness.

    Their critique of the exaggerated claims regarding statins' ability to prevent strokes, heart attacks and heart disease-related deaths on a large scale has been published in the medical journal Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology.

    Their paper is an analysis of the data in the statin trials which led them to conclude that "statin advocates have used statistical deception to create the illusion that statins are 'wonder drugs,' when the reality is that their modest benefits are more than offset by their adverse effects."

    The paper also describes how the basis of the deception is in how authors of the statin studies present the rate of beneficial and adverse effects. The effect of the drugs on the population is called the 'absolute risk,' which has shown that statins benefit only about 1% of the population. This means that only one out of 100 people treated with a statin will have one less heart attack. Statin researchers, however, don't present the 1% effect to the public. Instead they transform the 1% effect using another statistic, called the "relative risk," which creates the appearance that statins benefit 30-50% of the population.

    The exaggeration of beneficial effects of statin treatment was illustrated in their analysis of a subset of statin studies, including the Jupiter Trial (Crestor), the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA), and the British Heart Protection Study.

    "In the Jupiter trial, the public and healthcare workers were informed of a 54 percent reduction in heart attacks, when the actual effect in reduction of coronary events was less than 1 percentage point," said Ravnskov and Diamond, who is also a Career Research Scientist with the Medical Research Service at the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital in Tampa, Florida. "In the ASCOT-LLA study, which was terminated early because it was considered to have such outstanding results, there were heart attacks and deaths in 3% of the placebo (no treatment) group as compared to 1.9% in the Lipitor group. The improvement in outcome with Lipitor treatment was only 1.1 percentage point, but when this study was presented to the public, the advertisements used the inflated (relative risk) statistic, which transformed the 1.1% effect into a 36% reduction in heart attack risk.

    The inflated claims for statin effectiveness, and minimized portrayal of the adverse effects, has played a role in the health care providers and the public's enthusiasm for cholesterol-lowering drugs, say the authors.

    Continued...
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  9. #8



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

    Exclamation Statins DOUBLE the risk of diabetes according to 'alarming' 10-year study

    Statins DOUBLE the risk of diabetes according to 'alarming' 10-year study

    By Mailonline Reporter

    Published: 09:19 EST, 31 January 2016

    Healthy patients taking the heart drug statins have a significantly higher risk of new diabetes and a very high risk of serious diabetic complications, a study has found.

    The research, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine in May 2015, tracked individuals in a database for almost ten years. It discovered statin users had a higher incidence of diabetes and also weight gain.

    Patients using the drugs were also more likely than the others to develop diabetes with complications including eye, nerve and kidney damage.

    Professor Ishak Mansi, a heart specialist at the University of Texas who led the study, said the association between statin use and diabetes complications 'was never shown before.

    Users of statins were more than twice as likely to develop diabetes and were 250 percent more likely than their non-statin-using counterparts to develop diabetes with complications.

    Patients included in the study were identified as healthy adults and researchers assessed of 3982 statin users and 21,988 non users over the decade.

    'The risk of diabetes with statins has been known, but until now it was thought that this might be due to the fact that people who were prescribed statins had greater medical risks to begin with,' said Dr Mansi in a statement.

    Mansi told the Express that those results are 'alarming'.

    He added that drugs may be doing more harm than good for people at low risk of heart disease: 'I am sceptical about the prescribing guidelines for people at lower risk (of heart disease). I am concerned about the long term effects on the huge population of healthy people on these drugs who continue for many years.'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ear-study.html
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  12. #10
    Sigh....

    Before you start recommending people go see their vooodoo doctor with rattles and garlic.....

    Can statins cause damage over LONG periods oftime? Yes. There can be effects. There are zero cases of short term effects, nor 100% guarantee of developing alzheimer's. There is also no guarantee that people who do develop alzheimer's were not going to get it anyway. My family has a history of alzheimer's, so it is avoided by all of us.

    This is important to my point because if cancer is found, that is an immediate issue. Taking a statin drug for a year or two is not the same as taking it for 30 + years. Saying using it for cancer is dumb shows an ungodly lack of understanding, which honestly, seems rampant on most of the "natural" sites you seem to read and cite. The logic used is akin to me saying,"Life found to be cause of cancer!! Kill yourself now!!". Cancer is a 100% guarantee side effect of getting old, as it is part of the body breaking down with age. Now, as foolish as this sounds, the statement is true......life leads to cancer.

    Also, last time I checked, high cholesterol (except in rare genetic cases) is a side effect of a bad diet, which ironically, also is a contributor to diabetes.


    I understand,and support, of being aware of drugs and their effect before taking them. And I opted out of statin drugs for my cholesterol. But having said that, even I can't help but notice some serious issues with very circular logic in a lot of this "information". If you play the "black and white" game concerning meds and side effects, you'll find poison everywhere, to include natural remedies.
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Intoxiklown View Post
    Sigh....

    Before you start recommending people go see their vooodoo doctor with rattles and garlic.....

    Can statins cause damage over LONG periods oftime? Yes. There can be effects. There are zero cases of short term effects, nor 100% guarantee of developing alzheimer's. There is also no guarantee that people who do develop alzheimer's were not going to get it anyway. My family has a history of alzheimer's, so it is avoided by all of us.

    This is important to my point because if cancer is found, that is an immediate issue. Taking a statin drug for a year or two is not the same as taking it for 30 + years. Saying using it for cancer is dumb shows an ungodly lack of understanding, which honestly, seems rampant on most of the "natural" sites you seem to read and cite. The logic used is akin to me saying,"Life found to be cause of cancer!! Kill yourself now!!". Cancer is a 100% guarantee side effect of getting old, as it is part of the body breaking down with age. Now, as foolish as this sounds, the statement is true......life leads to cancer.

    Also, last time I checked, high cholesterol (except in rare genetic cases) is a side effect of a bad diet, which ironically, also is a contributor to diabetes.


    I understand,and support, of being aware of drugs and their effect before taking them. And I opted out of statin drugs for my cholesterol. But having said that, even I can't help but notice some serious issues with very circular logic in a lot of this "information". If you play the "black and white" game concerning meds and side effects, you'll find poison everywhere, to include natural remedies.
    Most of the people I have known who have been on statins were long term. My father's health went straight to hell after being on these horrendous pills for 8 years. The Cholesterol scam is how Big pHARMa rakes in the $$$$. You NEED cholesterol to function--most doctors won't tell their patients that or are completely ignorant of the fact.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  14. #12
    xxxxx
    Last edited by Voluntarist; 07-22-2018 at 11:04 AM.
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    My father's health went straight to hell after being on these horrendous pills for 8 years. .
    Let's see....she's about my age so her father is likely 20 or so years older. Obviously he wasn't the picture of health when they were prescribed..

    Seems legit.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntarist View Post
    Up that from zero to at least one. With a fragment of the lowest dosage of both Lipitor and Crestor I'm exhibiting cognitive effects like memory loss and confusion; things like getting lost coming home from paying the water bill. The longer I take them the worse the symptoms become. My kids joke about it - I wandered the house at a loss of what I set out to do.

    I'm usually on the opposite side of the fence from donnay. And it may be that I simply have an odd body chemistry - though I've been in touch with many others who've experienced the same. I can't, and refuse to, take any of the synthetic statins. I'm still debating whether to try any of the fermented variety.
    I also knew two men (WWII vets who did not know each other) who had horrible nightmares about the war. They took no other meds, but both men were on Lipitor at the time. Coincidence? They were in their late 70's and prescribed cholesterol lowing meds. One died at 82 and the other died at 81.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Let's see....she's about my age so her father is likely 20 or so years older. Obviously he wasn't the picture of health when they were prescribed..

    Seems legit.
    The ASSumptions you make... He was in good health until he started taking the Crestor as per his doctor's advice because his cholesterol levels were near 200.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  18. #16
    I know this might be shocking, but this whole thread is in agreement with the FDA.
    Reports of Memory Loss

    FDA has been investigating reports of cognitive impairment from statin use for several years. The agency has reviewed databases that record reports of bad reactions to drugs and statin clinical trials that included assessments of cognitive function.

    The reports about memory loss, forgetfulness and confusion span all statin products and all age groups. Egan says these experiences are rare but that those affected often report feeling “fuzzy” or unfocused in their thinking.

    In general, the symptoms were not serious and were reversible within a few weeks after the patient stopped using the statin. Some people affected in this way had been taking the medicine for a day; others had been taking it for years.
    Having said that, pretty much any external anything that you put in your body is going to have an effect. For everything, you have to decide if that effect is a net positive or negative. Whether that's eating a carrot or taking some kind of drug, you've got to figure out if it's worth it.
    Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Most of the people I have known who have been on statins were long term. My father's health went straight to hell after being on these horrendous pills for 8 years. The Cholesterol scam is how Big pHARMa rakes in the $$$$. You NEED cholesterol to function--most doctors won't tell their patients that or are completely ignorant of the fact.
    You are correct in that the body makes cholesterol due to it being needed. But there are different types of cholesterol, and bad diets leads to the bad kind. As I said, Alzheimer's is very prevalent in my family. So much so that if told I had it, I'd go off and shoot myself as opposed to having my children watch me wither down from it. I refused statin based drugs because of that. In fact, I refused all of the cholesterol drugs available as they lower your level by stopping the production of the good. A lower count made up of bad cholesterol just didn't compute to me. I simply changed my diet, and increased my activity.

    I am sure you think I wait for any chance to disagree with you, but you'd be surprised how much I view meds much like you. Where we split is on healthcare providers. I fully agree with the statement that pharm companies are out to make money off of misery. But those doctors, those mid level providers, all the way down to the nurses and CNAs.....are focused on your health and well being. Both short term, and long term. High levels of cholesterol, even the good kind, WILL lead to heart disease. It's not that their ignorant, nor lying. They are addressing your immediate medical needs, to avoid the at hand risk of leading to a heart attack. When they harp on things like diet and/or exercise, that is them laying out the base of your long term care. The biggest problem with meds today isn't lies from a company, nor malicious doctors....it's the mindset people have developed to expect a miracle pill that cures their ails, while allowing them to continue the habits of their life that lead to the need of said pill.

    My wife is a Nurse Practitioner, and while she could open her own practice and make a comfortable chunk of money, she instead chooses to work in the emergency room. I'm not saying they don't pay her well, but she could make more on her own. She likes the ER because that gives her a chance to offer hands on help to people whose lives are depending on that help being informed and sincere. I know several of the doctors she works with, and I have watched these people carry burdens of guilt and depression because some addict OD'ed, and killed their unborn child. If my wife missed something on a patient, she might sleep a couple of hours a night for around a week, spending her time off devouring journals, books, studies, you name it. Because the thought of anyone being hurt for life, or dying because she didn't know about something (I don't care how rare it might be) is unacceptable to her. And her peers.

    Not to say everyone in the medical field is that way, but I'd wager the percentage that is exceeds your outlook by a substantial amount.
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato

  21. #18
    statins might be ok for alleviating severe hyperlipidemia in the short term and I could see that no problem.. I do have a problem with the idea of long term/chronic use of statins.. you do not want to inhibit cholesterol synthesis for an extended period of time as this can interfere with several important bodily processes and the integrity of cell membranes

    they really need to do long term studies regarding this but they seem ok for getting someone with extreme levels of lipids down to a safer levels and then taking other steps to keep them there which should come from easily made dietary changes

    without longterm studies, I would only be okay with prescribing them in emergency cases where you could save their life and prevent MI's or strokes and other related complications
    The ultimate minority is the individual. Protect the individual from Democracy and you will protect all groups of individuals
    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson
    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

    - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntarist View Post
    Up that from zero to at least one. With a fragment of the lowest dosage of both Lipitor and Crestor I'm exhibiting cognitive effects like memory loss and confusion; things like getting lost coming home from paying the water bill. The longer I take them the worse the symptoms become. My kids joke about it - I wandered the house at a loss of what I set out to do.

    I'm usually on the opposite side of the fence from donnay. And it may be that I simply have an odd body chemistry - though I've been in touch with many others who've experienced the same. I can't, and refuse to, take any of the synthetic statins. I'm still debating whether to try any of the fermented variety.
    If it's not impolite, how old are you? If you haven't, you very much need to bring this up to your doctor. I say that because more than likely you have something that is either simply coinciding with taking them, or even possibly (please don't take offense) conversion disorder. Meaning, you're aware of possible long term effects, and your brain has decided to skip the need for long term dosage, and is exhibiting those symptoms. Honestly though, if it's a psychosomatic, that good. Because if you're experiencing those effects from short term, more than likely there is an underlying issue that is the root cause, and you're connecting lapses to a possible problem instead of saying what we all do when we "zone out" while doing things like driving.

    Again, you need to have a very open talk with your doctor. But keep in mind while trying to weigh your options. My count was close to 300, and I got mine down without any meds. It wasn't so bad for me though, I'm southern, which means I enjoy and have veggies with every meal. So basically the foods that can help with it are things I grew up eating anyway. Mine got so bad because I am just now starting to recover from major back surgery, and was pretty much bed ridden for almost an entire year. Bed ridden....with an almost deviant love for Reece's Pieces.

    If you have talked to your doctor, and their response was not to immediately take you off the meds, AND do a workup to look for root cause.....get another doctor.
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato

  23. #20
    Stop eating so much high fat & cholesterol meat, eggs, and dairy and you won't need statins in the first place.

  24. #21
    Statin Scam: People with Higher Cholesterol Live Longer than People with Low Cholesterol



    Brian Shilhavy
    Health Impact News Editor

    Here is a fact that has been known for quite a long time, but it is still news to many people:

    People with higher cholesterol levels live longer than people with lower cholesterol levels.

    Read that again, slowly, and no, it is not a typo.

    The reason why this fact is not well-known in the general public is because it would put a huge dent into a $100 BILLION drug market for statin drugs – drugs that lower your cholesterol. With approximately one out every four Americans over the age of 50 currently prescribed a statin drug, a drug with very serious side effects, this is certainly one issue you should investigate yourself. Please don’t take my word on it, nor anybody else’s.
    What the Research Says Concerning Cholesterol Levels and Mortality Rates

    This is but a sampling of the research on the fact that low cholesterol is dangerous, while high cholesterol is beneficial.

    Study: Low total cholesterol is associated with high total mortality in patients with coronary heart disease, European Heart Journal, January 1997

    Quote:

    The relative risk of non-cardiac death was 2.27 times higher in the low cholesterol group than in the controls (95% CI: 1.49-3.45), whereas the risk of cardiac death was the same in both groups relative risk 1.09; 95% CI: 0.76-1.56). The most frequent cause of non-cardiac death associated with low total cholesterol was cancer. These results in patients with coronary heart disease add weight to previous studies associating low total cholesterol with an increased risk of non-cardiac death.

    ———–

    Study: Low Serum Cholesterol and Mortality, American Heart Association, June 1994

    Quote:

    Falling TC (total cholesterol) level was accompanied by a subsequent increased risk of death caused by some cancers (hemopoietic, esophageal, and prostate), noncardiovascular noncancer causes (particularly liver disease), and all causes. The risk-factor–adjusted rate of all-cause mortality was 30% higher (relative risk, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.59) among persons with a decline from middle (180 to 239 mg/dL) to low (<180 mg/dL) TC than in persons remaining at a stable middle level.

    Comment: The American Heart Association has known since at least 1994 that low cholesterol is associated with an increased risk of death. Of course, they theorize that the diseases the people died from caused the low cholesterol – something this study did not prove (because it cannot – it can only show associations or links). But the AHA does not deny that low cholesterol is associated with increased death.

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/sta....L4xMiOKA.dpuf

    More info:
    The Cholesterol/Statin racket
    http://www.whale.to/a/cholesterol.html
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Statin Scam: People with Higher Cholesterol Live Longer than People with Low Cholesterol
    Thanks for these posts.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by FindLiberty View Post
    Thanks for these posts.
    You're welcome.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  27. #24
    More low carb propaganda.

    The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol/

    1. Cholesterol is not a deadly poison
    4. There is no evidence that too much animal fat and cholesterol in the diet promotes atherosclerosis or heart attacks.
    5. The only effective way to lower cholesterol is with drugs
    1. No one said it is.
    4. Incorrect. Eskimos have a similar prevalence of CAD (coronary artery disease) as non-Eskimo populations, they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, their overall mortality is twice as high as that of non-Eskimo populations.
    5. Incorrect. A low fat plant-based diet lowers cholesterol.

    Here's a good counter to Ravnskov's claims.

    Mythbusting the Cholesterol Myths
    Uffe Ravnskov's The Cholesterol Myths - Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease (2000) is the bible of cholesterol contrarianism.
    These contrarians call themselves skeptics but their goal is not to examine all the evidence and think critically about it in the large context of our medical knowledge. Their goal is to cherry pick data to support their contention that low cholesterol is bad for you and high cholesterol is positively good for you. A diet high in saturated fats is never unhealthy, in their opinion. Not everything they say is false. Much of it is true. But everything they say is taken out of context to support their contention.
    Another technique UR uses is to accuse those who disagree with him of "medical quackery"
    The straw man technique is another favorite of UR.
    Ravnskov claims that he's shown "that there is little or no evidence that blood cholesterol plays any role at all in coronary heart disease." This is an exaggeration typical of his bombastic approach to argumentation.
    http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk28.html


    Even Loren Cordain disputes Ravnskov's claim.

    Loren Cordain: But to unequivocally say that saturated fats do not cause atherosclerosis, is sheer folly. We know that they do.
    http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2010/...er-march-25th/
    Last edited by farreri; 02-05-2016 at 08:16 PM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Statin Scam: People with Higher Cholesterol Live Longer than People with Low Cholesterol



    Brian Shilhavy
    Health Impact News Editor

    Here is a fact that has been known for quite a long time, but it is still news to many people:

    People with higher cholesterol levels live longer than people with lower cholesterol levels.

    Read that again, slowly, and no, it is not a typo.

    The reason why this fact is not well-known in the general public is because it would put a huge dent into a $100 BILLION drug market for statin drugs – drugs that lower your cholesterol. With approximately one out every four Americans over the age of 50 currently prescribed a statin drug, a drug with very serious side effects, this is certainly one issue you should investigate yourself. Please don’t take my word on it, nor anybody else’s.
    What the Research Says Concerning Cholesterol Levels and Mortality Rates

    This is but a sampling of the research on the fact that low cholesterol is dangerous, while high cholesterol is beneficial.

    Study: Low total cholesterol is associated with high total mortality in patients with coronary heart disease, European Heart Journal, January 1997

    Quote:

    The relative risk of non-cardiac death was 2.27 times higher in the low cholesterol group than in the controls (95% CI: 1.49-3.45), whereas the risk of cardiac death was the same in both groups relative risk 1.09; 95% CI: 0.76-1.56). The most frequent cause of non-cardiac death associated with low total cholesterol was cancer. These results in patients with coronary heart disease add weight to previous studies associating low total cholesterol with an increased risk of non-cardiac death.

    ———–

    Study: Low Serum Cholesterol and Mortality, American Heart Association, June 1994

    Quote:

    Falling TC (total cholesterol) level was accompanied by a subsequent increased risk of death caused by some cancers (hemopoietic, esophageal, and prostate), noncardiovascular noncancer causes (particularly liver disease), and all causes. The risk-factor–adjusted rate of all-cause mortality was 30% higher (relative risk, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.59) among persons with a decline from middle (180 to 239 mg/dL) to low (<180 mg/dL) TC than in persons remaining at a stable middle level.

    Comment: The American Heart Association has known since at least 1994 that low cholesterol is associated with an increased risk of death. Of course, they theorize that the diseases the people died from caused the low cholesterol – something this study did not prove (because it cannot – it can only show associations or links). But the AHA does not deny that low cholesterol is associated with increased death.

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/sta....L4xMiOKA.dpuf

    More info:
    The Cholesterol/Statin racket
    http://www.whale.to/a/cholesterol.html

    None of these articles break down the relevant numbers. Total cholesterol can be divided into VLDL, LDL, HDL. It has been for many years understood that if HDL levels (good cholesterol) become to low, you are very much in danger of heart attack. And since statin based meds lower total cholesterol levels, patients are never prescribed such drugs without dangerously high cholesterol levels. Have you ever seen a Lipid panel? Anything under 40 on HDL is dangerous. However, the LDL and VLDL (to keep from getting off into an advanced biology lecture by keeping it simple) is what constitutes the bad cholesterol count.

    If someone seriously tells you high cholesterol is good, then by all means, ask them to inject some crisco IV. Because that is what high cholesterol will, without fail, accomplish.....result in causing plaque build up in your arteries. I'm confident slowly choking off the blood flow to and from your heart, and the negative results that will render, don't need explanation.

    Again, these articles are using broad terminology to make their case. In doing so, they leave out the subtle differences that doctors use to diagnose health issues. Cholesterol is not some one simple thing. These articles are very similar to arguments and questions encountered by a first year nursing student, because they have not yet been educated to understand there is more to it than a total number.

    To reiterate, I am not advocating statin based meds. However, having said that, anyone demonizing them when they are the gold standard for immediate health risks is cutting their nose off to spite their face. Most people use statins as an immediate treatment to get dangerously high cholesterol under control, then switch their patient to something different, like Zetia, which blocks cholesterol absorption at the stomach instead of interfering with natural production.

    Melissa made an excellent point, in that you simply cannot approach medicine from a black and white stance dealing in absolutes. Had I not been able to lower my count as I did, I would have begrudgingly taken the statin based meds to get my number down to a safer level to avoid any immediate risk while I adjusted my lifestyle. As I said, my count was just shy of 300, and I guarantee that if one of those authors were told those results for themselves, they'd request a statin based regime. They most certainly wouldn't thank the doctor for the great news, citing that high levels was good, and they now felt at ease.
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato

  30. #26
    Statin Exposed: Cholesterol Drugs Cause Rapid Aging, Brain Damage and Diabetes

    by Jennifer Lea Reynolds

    Statins, the widely prescribed class of drugs said to lower "bad" cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart problems, has recently come under fire after a study revealed that they destroy human health more than they work to improve it.

    Sadly, many people take statin drugs, which are commonly known by brand names including Lipitor, Crestor and Zocor.

    Prescription drug spending in the U.S. shot up to about $374 billion in 2014, representing the highest level of spending since 2001.

    Statins undoubtedly made up a significant portion of this spending, and now consumers who take such drugs have much more to worry about than the dent it's making in their wallets.

    The study, which was published in the American Journal of Physiology, states that statins' "...impact on other biologic properties of stem cells provides a novel explanation for their adverse clinical effects."

    Specifically, the study states that such adverse effects include advancing the "process of aging" and also notes that "... long-term use of statins has been associated with adverse effects including myopathy, neurological side effects and an increased risk of diabetes."

    Myopathy refers to skeletal muscle weakness.

    Statins make cells unable to repair properly, create nerve problems and destroy memory

    Experts involved in the study suggest that the health problems associated with statins have likely been downplayed through the years.

    In reality, those taking such cholesterol-lowering drugs have been experiencing cataracts, fatigue, liver problems, muscle pain and memory loss.

    Simply put, the drugs have been found to tamper with cells in such a way that their primary purpose of reproducing and helping the body repair is thwarted. With that comes the onset of terrible health issues or the worsening of existing ones.

    Professor Reza Izadpanah, a stem cell biologist and lead author of the published study, says:

    "Our study shows statins may speed up the ageing process. People who use statins as a preventative medicine for [health] should think again as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems and joint problems."

    http://humansarefree.com/2015/12/sta...ns+Are+Free%29
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Intoxiklown View Post
    None of these articles break down the relevant numbers. Total cholesterol can be divided into VLDL, LDL, HDL. It has been for many years understood that if HDL levels (good cholesterol) become to low, you are very much in danger of heart attack. And since statin based meds lower total cholesterol levels, patients are never prescribed such drugs without dangerously high cholesterol levels. Have you ever seen a Lipid panel? Anything under 40 on HDL is dangerous. However, the LDL and VLDL (to keep from getting off into an advanced biology lecture by keeping it simple) is what constitutes the bad cholesterol count.

    If someone seriously tells you high cholesterol is good, then by all means, ask them to inject some crisco IV. Because that is what high cholesterol will, without fail, accomplish.....result in causing plaque build up in your arteries. I'm confident slowly choking off the blood flow to and from your heart, and the negative results that will render, don't need explanation.

    Again, these articles are using broad terminology to make their case. In doing so, they leave out the subtle differences that doctors use to diagnose health issues. Cholesterol is not some one simple thing. These articles are very similar to arguments and questions encountered by a first year nursing student, because they have not yet been educated to understand there is more to it than a total number.

    To reiterate, I am not advocating statin based meds. However, having said that, anyone demonizing them when they are the gold standard for immediate health risks is cutting their nose off to spite their face. Most people use statins as an immediate treatment to get dangerously high cholesterol under control, then switch their patient to something different, like Zetia, which blocks cholesterol absorption at the stomach instead of interfering with natural production.

    Melissa made an excellent point, in that you simply cannot approach medicine from a black and white stance dealing in absolutes. Had I not been able to lower my count as I did, I would have begrudgingly taken the statin based meds to get my number down to a safer level to avoid any immediate risk while I adjusted my lifestyle. As I said, my count was just shy of 300, and I guarantee that if one of those authors were told those results for themselves, they'd request a statin based regime. They most certainly wouldn't thank the doctor for the great news, citing that high levels was good, and they now felt at ease.

    LDL is Your Friend

    LDL or low density lipoprotein has been given a bad rap. Every since someone decided to call it “bad cholesterol” it has been demonized as being responsible for just about everything bad in the world. Medical doctors and cardiologists in specific have joined the crusade against LDL with a pervasive mentality that somehow the lower the blood value of LDL, the better. Fortunately, the justification for this altruism is unjustified.

    So let’s take a step back for a moment and review just exactly what LDL is and does, and then I’ll move on and explain why the notion of it being something to fear is ill founded.

    LDL is what we call a carrier protein, and one of its important jobs is to carry a fundamentally important chemical to every cell in the body. This chemical is a critical component of cell membranes, serves as a brain antioxidant, and is the raw material from which your body manufactures vitamin D, cortisol, estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone. And this important, life-sustaining chemical is cholesterol.

    So the notion that LDL is “bad cholesterol” is flawed on two counts. First, it is, in and of itself, not cholesterol, it is a protein. Second, now that you’ve embraced all of its functions in human physiology, it’s clear that LDL is anything but bad. How could we castigate a part of our biochemistry so fundamental for life?

    LDL plays a particularly important role in brain health and function as you would expect based on the information above. In fact, you might expect that low levels of LDL might well be associated with compromise of brain tissue, and you would be right.

    Earlier this month, researchers publishing in the prestigious journal, Neurology, designed a study to explore possible correlations between various markers of blood fats and risk for specific changes on MRI scans of the brain in 2,608 adults. The MRI changes in the brain they explored were changes associated with damage to small blood vessels, and, changes in the brain’s white matter associated with small strokes as these changes represent “powerful predictors of stroke and dementia.”

    The researchers concluded that there was a strong correlation between these threatening brain changes and the blood measurement of triglycerides. While the reverse was true as it related to LDL. Meaning that higher levels of LDL were associated with less risk of the brain changes that are so worrisome.

    The authors concluded:

    Increasing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol tended to be associated with a decreased frequency and severity of all MRI markers of cerebral small vessel disease in both studies. Increasing triglycerides but not other lipid fractions were associated with MRI markers of cerebral small vessel disease in older community persons.

    This is really important information first because triglycerides, which you will generally see as one of the results on your typical blood work, is strongly associated with detrimental changes in the brain. What’s more, triglycerides reflect blood sugar and as such, reflect the amount of sugar and carbohydrates in the diet, not the amount of fat a person consumes. Second, this study is one of many that should clearly reframe our view of LDL as higher levels appear to be strongly brain protective.

    http://www.drperlmutter.com/ldl-friend/
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    OMFG - the guy who wrote that second article knows even less about clinical research than I do. Note the same old pattern - no evidence to back up the claim, no science of his own to make a point, only a lot of shrieking about how "their" science can't be trusted.

    Why isn't he running the study that he is insisting on? I know two answers without even looking, but I want to see the bad science apologists try to defend this crap first.
    Exactly.
    Last edited by navy-vet; 02-05-2016 at 11:14 PM.

  33. #29
    Chester Copperpot
    Member

    statins are horribly bad... nobody needs them.. the body can regulate your cholesterol levels..

  34. #30
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Statins Totally Worthless in Study of 4 Million People
    By DamianTV in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-22-2013, 02:22 PM
  2. People ARE Waking Up
    By Okie RP fan in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-24-2012, 09:55 AM
  3. People are waking up!!
    By robert9712000 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-14-2012, 07:57 PM
  4. People are waking up
    By dude58677 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-11-2009, 05:05 PM
  5. People Are Waking Up
    By LivingFree in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-28-2008, 07:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •