Re: Re: Hidden Truth About Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs

[Guest guest]

,

I know of a few people on them with no symptoms at

all. They're a hard lot to convince to stop taking

them.

jafa

--- <toyotaokiec@...> wrote:

> Do you think your mom will come to realize they are

> harmful to her

> health?

>

> If she takes them regularly, in pretty short order I

> would expect to

> see signs of brain fog and reduction of physical

> strength, not to

> mention foot pain.

>

> At least, that's what I've seen when people I know

> have started taking

> them. And when they stop taking the statins, the

> symptoms have

> reversed.

>

>

>

>

>

> > > I just posted a new book review:

> > >

> > >

>

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Hidden-Truth-About-

> Cholesterol-

> > Lowering-Drugs.html

> > >

> >

> > Thanks for the info Chris.

> >

> > My mum has just been prescribed statins for a

> cholesterol level of 6

> > (and a high ratio of LDL). I've been sending her

> easy-to-digest info

> > on the cholesterol myth and the dangers of

> statins, so your review of

> > the book suits this purpose well (she won't read

> anything too

> > complicated or scientific). I've sent her the

> link.

> >

> > Jo

>

>

>

__________________________________

for Mobile

Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

> Statins have so many different effects that it's likely they do some

> people good and do harm in others. I think there is no need for them,

> because their positive aspects can be achieved through methods that do

> not have their negative effects, but those positive effects DO exist,

> and might outweigh the negatives in certain subsets of the population

> with a certain type of body chemistry.

Thought you might find this interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/c3bnl

I've actually pulled the study/analysis and it clearly shows that fish oil

is more effective in total mortality and cardiac mortality than all other

treatments. It does, however, show that statin drugs are second in

effectiveness.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>I've actually pulled the study/analysis and it clearly shows that fish oil

>is more effective in total mortality and cardiac mortality than all other

>treatments. It does, however, show that statin drugs are second in

>effectiveness.

In order for statins to be " effective " , though, you have to ignore

(suppress) total mortality and be careful not to run the study for too

long. They do have a certain anti-inflammatory effect, but they increase

cancer and the all-cause death rate, not to mention all sorts of other

problems, so that in the long run, their mortality effect is negative, not

positive. Even in those shorter-term studies, total mortality is often

about the same or a little higher in the statin group, but only the cardiac

mortality figures are reported.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>The specific review to which Ron is referring looked at both cardiac

>and total mortality, and found a beneficial effect for both.

What was the term of the study, though?

> However,

>you are correct that the longer the duration of the study, the less

>benefit. I've seen another review cited elsehwere showing that over

>the span of 10 years have found increased mortality, but I haven't

>read the review yet.

Kendrick has discussed this issue on numerous occasions on Red Flags, and

according to him, total mortality is generally either about the same or

worse, and the longer the term of the study, the worse it gets.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>It wasn't a study per se, but a review

Oh, right. Brain fart on my part.

>3) had a followup of at least 6 months

Well, that's not especially useful, I'm afraid.

>One of the drawbacks to their analysis is that they did not use

>subgroups based on trial length. They noted that the statistical

>analysis indicated that the positive effect on mortality dropped over

>time, which would have made it interesting to look specifically at the

>longest-duration trials.

Since statin studies have generally been carefully controlled to avoid

revealing the long-term effects of statins, I'm not sure how much data

would've been available for them to look at.

>I just subscribed a few days ago, so I'll check the archives soon.

I don't agree with Kendrick on everything (his theory about the cause of

heart disease makes little sense to me) but IMO his column is the best on

the site.

-