Re: Hidden Truth About Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

On 9/2/05, jafa <jafasum@...> wrote:

> ,

>

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

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

> them.

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.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Well, Kaufmann mentions statins as being so-called " beneficial "

because they are actually antifungal. It's not the cholesterol-

lowering effect that is helping, it's the antifungal effect.

I just am afraid if we take anything for *years*, it's going to hurt

at least our liver in the long run.

I can see where some people might be able to take them for 2-5 years

without feeling bad, but eventually it catches up with them.

:-(

I agree with you, there are other ways to get the beneficial effects.

> > ,

> >

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

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

> > them.

>

> 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.

>

> Chris

> --

> Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

> Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/3/05, <toyotaokiec@...> wrote:

> Well, Kaufmann mentions statins as being so-called " beneficial "

> because they are actually antifungal. It's not the cholesterol-

> lowering effect that is helping, it's the antifungal effect.

Interesting! I didn't know that.

> I just am afraid if we take anything for *years*, it's going to hurt

> at least our liver in the long run.

Maybe. I haven't studied statin toxicity/detoxification at all, so I

don't know anything about it.

> I can see where some people might be able to take them for 2-5 years

> without feeling bad, but eventually it catches up with them.

Hmm. I don't know. In the dementia study I commented on in my last

newsletter, it seemed like those who were getting serious harm (about

30% or so) were getting it between 1 and 3 years, while those who kept

on taking them after that did fine.

On the other hand, no truly LONG-TERM studies have been done, and we

don't know what their effect on certain cancer rates is, for the

cancers that take a long time to develop.

> :-(

>

> I agree with you, there are other ways to get the beneficial effects.

I don't know if there's anything statins do that can't be done by

something else. That includes lowering cholesterol too, but there's

no evidence I've ever seen that lowering cholesterol " naturally " is

beneficial. I think, maybe barring some severe disorders, anything

that binds cholesterol and excretes it or inhibits its synthesis is

bad news. Things that cause it to be used more efficiently (like

vitamin A and coconut oil), or cause you to need less of it (like

things that protect blood vessels or reduce toxins or reduce stress)

will lower it, and be good. Things that just lower it directly

wouldn't. So I think all this policosanol/niacin stuff is crap, and

the biggest idiots are the people who recommend red yeast rice, which

is like recommending fruit juice instead of soda so you can avoid the

sugar.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> 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.

>

Hi

Very fortunately, they made her feel so ill, she stopped taking them.

So that saves me half a job! But she was worried about it, so all this

stuff will put her mind at rest, and hopefully provide her with the

necessary info to ward off the doctor's annoyance when she tells him

Jo

[Guest guest]

> So I think all this policosanol/niacin stuff is crap, and

> the biggest idiots are the people who recommend red yeast rice,

which

> is like recommending fruit juice instead of soda so you can avoid

the

> sugar.

>

> Chris

>

> --

> Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

> Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

I saw an article that made the point that Nystatin is made from red

yeast rice. Duh!

I knew a gal at work who took red yeast rice. She also tried in

other ways to stay " healthy " , but she got to where she didn't have

enough strength to garden like she used to. She also seemed to get

slower mentally, and in fact doesn't work here anymore. I can't help

but wonder if the red yeast rice was her downfall. :-( At the time

she mentioned it, I was unaware that it was the original source of

the " statin " drugs.

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, <toyotaokiec@...> wrote:

> I knew a gal at work who took red yeast rice. She also tried in

> other ways to stay " healthy " , but she got to where she didn't have

> enough strength to garden like she used to. She also seemed to get

> slower mentally, and in fact doesn't work here anymore. I can't help

> but wonder if the red yeast rice was her downfall. :-( At the time

> she mentioned it, I was unaware that it was the original source of

> the " statin " drugs.

Yup, and mevinolin, the statin this is its active component, is the

same one that was used in the 2001 experiment published in Science to

produce a cholesterol-free glial secretion that made neurons unable to

form synapses

(http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Memory-And-Cholesterol.html).

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/7/05, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

> 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.

Whether or not statins lower mortality is controversial. I'm glad to

see Dr. Sears is opposing statin use, but I think his perspective on

it is rather whacked. He implies that lowering cholesterol actually

reduces mortality, just not as well as reducing inflammation, which is

bogus because most of the benefits of statins are probably due to

their anti-inflammatory effects and pretty clearly aren't due to their

cholesterol-lowering effects. I find his AA-bashing rather tiring

too. Fish oil provides EPA which has anti-inflammatory effects in

itself. I'm not familiar with why fish oil would decrease AA

synthesis, but I think the idea that having AA leads to inflammation

is bogus. AA is trapped in phospholipids and is only released from

membranes to produce inflammatory hormones when that response is

elicited by other signaling molecules.

Thanks for the link though; I'll have to take a look at the study.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/17/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> 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.

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

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

The meta-analysis Ron is citing was, as far as I can tell, conducted

extremely well. Omega-3s had roughly double the effect of statins.

I've read that statins inhibit nuclear factor kappa-B, which is a

mediatory of inflammation, which I believe would be expected to lower

the risk of some cancers and elevate others. That seems to be what we

see with statins-- birth control pills do that too.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/17/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> >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?

It wasn't a study per se, but a review, and it meta-analyzed ALL of

the studies that fit the criteria of 1) were controlled 2) were

randomized 3) had a followup of at least 6 months 4) examined only one

treatment per group, 5) used more than 1000 patients and 6) used

mortality as an endpoint.

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.

They also noted that the variation between effectiveness in statin

trials can be entirely explained by the percentage of patients with

established CHD. This indicates that statins have minimal if any

effectiveness at reducing mortality in non-CHD patients even using the

short-term analysis.

> > 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.

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

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html