[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/custom-spacedoc.php on line 2: mysql_connect(): Access denied for user 'pblocals_super'@'localhost' (using password: YES)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/custom-spacedoc.php on line 5: mysql_fetch_array() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/custom-spacedoc.php on line 5: mysql_fetch_array() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given
A terrifying episode
19 posts
• Page 1 of 1
A terrifying episode
by pembertonltd » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:50 pm
I am presently a District Nurse for the Board of Ed here in So. Cal. I am going on 60 and have been on Vytorin for some time now. My wife and children have been telling me for many months that I have been forgetting things that they have told me. Most of the time I argue with them and tell them that they had never told me anything at all. I recently had been in Nebraska and had left my Vytorin here in California during Xmas. Upon coming back and not taking the med for 3 weeks I started it again. This past Tuesday night I took my normal meds along with the Vytorin and since I was wide awake and my wife was visiting my other daughter some 60 miles away, I decided that I would take an Ambien CR. I have taken the Ambien in the past and had never had any problem at all. I think I remember taking it around 9:00 pm and that is the last thing that I remember. The next morning my daughter from Nebraska called me on the phone at 6:30 am like normal since I was due to go to work. She states that I answered the phone and was slurring my words and then she called my wife to let her know that I was having some sort of problem. My wife called a neighbor of ours and asked him to come to the house until she got here. She then called me back and told me to wait for Ken and to open the door for him, which I evidently did. I find out that he was with me for over an hour during which time I carried on a discussion with him, placed several calls (all while slurring) and tried to turn on the TV. Once my wife got home she took me to the local E.R. where tey did CTs and several other tests to rule out a CVA. This was about 10:00 the next morning and all tests were normal except for having a broken nose and a deep laceration on my nose from taking a fall. That night my wife asked me why I had taken a bag of chips upstairs to the room and I informed her that it wasn't me. Like she said there wasn't anyone else in the house. In order to figure out what had happened to me we started looking for my glasses that I would have normally been wearing. With the injuried that I had I figured that I had fallen down a flight of stairs. They were no where to be found. As a last ditch measure we looked out in the driveway, the lawn and finally the garage. We found them under one of my antique cars along with a pool of blood on the floor of the garage. Evidently I had gone into the garage (something I would never do at night time) and I must have thought that I was going to work on one of the cars. Instead I tripped on something that was on the floor and have no idea as to how long I was there, but then obviously went back into the house and I guess I stayed there until my daughter called the next morning. The problem is I don't have any form of hypertension, I am a type 2 diabetic, which I have under control with meds otherwise I am relatively healthy. The Vytorin had definately helped bring down my cholesterol, but now I have doubts as to what happened to me. My daughter had found your web site and I would like to know if what i experienced was from the Vytorin or possible the Ambien. It is very scary for me to not know what happened during the 13-14 hours and not to remember anything. The things that I did were completely out of character for me. I am a retired Navy Corpsman with specialties in Diving Medicine and also Independant Duty Medicine so I have done medicine since 1965 and never really been scared until now. I realize that this maybe rambling on, but I really need to have some idea as to what happened. I hate to think that I would have gotten into my car and tried to drive. Thanks for listening.
- pembertonltd
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:13 pm
- Location: So. Cal
by adec » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:53 pm
I'm SO glad your daughter found this forum, and welcome. I'm also so distraught to hear of your problem. And yes, just perusing these forums, yours is a fairly common *yet extremely frightening* story. Or at least, a good percentage of people report a steep decline in memory while taking statin drugs, of which Vytorin (or simvastatin) is considered. Also, a less common symptom surrounds bouts of transient global amnesia (TGA,) of which you also seemed to also have experienced.
TGA is basically where you have no recall of substantial periods of time. This can be caused by a loss of circulation to the brain, an arterial spasm, or even a blood clot. These can be very difficult to accurately diagnose. Eventually, over time, these attacks can lead to a greater potential for stroke. Although, I believe the interaction between both medications could have possibly triggered even greater side effects, as Ambien CR is also known to cause memory loss.
In my opinion, I would certainly stop taking Vytorin IMMEDIATELY. *I personally would never allow any of my loved ones to ever take statins in any dosage.* And I would ASAP purchase Coenyzme Q10 w/ Vitamin E in gel form, in the largest dose you can afford... 150mg 2x a day is preferable, although, there's no upper limit. This is one of the most crucial elements to your full recovery. Statin drugs such as Vytorin use the same metabolic pathway as CoQ10, and therefore deplete this essential enzyme... among a few other things. CoQ10 is an important nutrient involved in so many vital functions, as you've already discovered.
I would also suggest something as common as melatonin for treating insomnia... 1-3mg an hour before bedtime. There are many more benefits of melatonin over something such as Ambien CR. More importantly, I would also recommend using the wealth of statin and cholesterol-related resources provided by Dr. Graveline's website.... http://spacedoc.net/. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already experienced a number of statin-related side effects without formally attributing them to your statin prescription.
Good luck, and please report back on your progress.
TGA is basically where you have no recall of substantial periods of time. This can be caused by a loss of circulation to the brain, an arterial spasm, or even a blood clot. These can be very difficult to accurately diagnose. Eventually, over time, these attacks can lead to a greater potential for stroke. Although, I believe the interaction between both medications could have possibly triggered even greater side effects, as Ambien CR is also known to cause memory loss.
In my opinion, I would certainly stop taking Vytorin IMMEDIATELY. *I personally would never allow any of my loved ones to ever take statins in any dosage.* And I would ASAP purchase Coenyzme Q10 w/ Vitamin E in gel form, in the largest dose you can afford... 150mg 2x a day is preferable, although, there's no upper limit. This is one of the most crucial elements to your full recovery. Statin drugs such as Vytorin use the same metabolic pathway as CoQ10, and therefore deplete this essential enzyme... among a few other things. CoQ10 is an important nutrient involved in so many vital functions, as you've already discovered.
I would also suggest something as common as melatonin for treating insomnia... 1-3mg an hour before bedtime. There are many more benefits of melatonin over something such as Ambien CR. More importantly, I would also recommend using the wealth of statin and cholesterol-related resources provided by Dr. Graveline's website.... http://spacedoc.net/. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already experienced a number of statin-related side effects without formally attributing them to your statin prescription.
Good luck, and please report back on your progress.
- adec
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: New York City
Reply for 'pembertonltd',
by sos_group_owner » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:32 pm
Hello 'pembertonltd' & Welcome to the Forum,
* Sleep disorders - one of the first signs of statin side effects - definitely try melatonin as 'adec' suggested.
* TGA - transient global amnesia - as explained by Dr Graveline - the inability to form new memory - One can perform tasks, such as shopping and driving (yes, very scary) with no recall - From your description, I'd say your 13-14 hours episode was TGA.
* CoQ10 - the only caution is that CoQ10 can lower BP (which is a good thing) - if you are taking BP meds, monitor your BP when starting and increasing dosage.
How long have you been taking Vytorin?
Do you have any risk factors other than high cholesterol, such as diabetes, etc ?
What were your cholesterol levels before Vytorin?
Fran
* Sleep disorders - one of the first signs of statin side effects - definitely try melatonin as 'adec' suggested.
* TGA - transient global amnesia - as explained by Dr Graveline - the inability to form new memory - One can perform tasks, such as shopping and driving (yes, very scary) with no recall - From your description, I'd say your 13-14 hours episode was TGA.
* CoQ10 - the only caution is that CoQ10 can lower BP (which is a good thing) - if you are taking BP meds, monitor your BP when starting and increasing dosage.
How long have you been taking Vytorin?
Do you have any risk factors other than high cholesterol, such as diabetes, etc ?
What were your cholesterol levels before Vytorin?
Fran
- sos_group_owner
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:03 pm
- Location: Connecticut
by Ray Holder » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:31 am
Also watch your sugar level, as Q10 will probably normalise it and your diabetes medication may then cause it to fall too low, so you may need less medication.
Ray
Ray
- Ray Holder
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:00 pm
- Location: Bournemouth England
by Liz » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:38 am
[quote="Ray Holder"]Also watch your sugar level, as Q10 will probably normalise it and your diabetes medication may then cause it to fall too low, so you may need less medication.
Ray[/quote] :cry: Hello I am fairly new to this site but have posted two reviews about my experiences on Lipator, agonising leg cramps,muscle weakness, tiredness ect... my Doctor said no not the statin could cause these problems but lo and behold took me off the lipator (20mgs) as my cholesterol shot up to 9.4( I have an inherited high cholesterol problem) and put me on 5ms of crestor. Having read so much sense from yourself and others on this site I asked my Doctor if I could have CO-Q10 on prescription to help my problems,he said he knows of no benifit of using Q10 and that it is not available on prescription. I have now purchased it on line and have been taking it nearly a week and the cramps have stopped!! I notice that all the information is from America as they are more switched on than us!! but I do feel for the amount of people that are taking statins here in England and do not get help, thank heavens for this site and sensible people like yourself.I will keep going at the health service to give us the Q10 that we need and have the support of my pharmacist. :roll: Liz.
Ray[/quote] :cry: Hello I am fairly new to this site but have posted two reviews about my experiences on Lipator, agonising leg cramps,muscle weakness, tiredness ect... my Doctor said no not the statin could cause these problems but lo and behold took me off the lipator (20mgs) as my cholesterol shot up to 9.4( I have an inherited high cholesterol problem) and put me on 5ms of crestor. Having read so much sense from yourself and others on this site I asked my Doctor if I could have CO-Q10 on prescription to help my problems,he said he knows of no benifit of using Q10 and that it is not available on prescription. I have now purchased it on line and have been taking it nearly a week and the cramps have stopped!! I notice that all the information is from America as they are more switched on than us!! but I do feel for the amount of people that are taking statins here in England and do not get help, thank heavens for this site and sensible people like yourself.I will keep going at the health service to give us the Q10 that we need and have the support of my pharmacist. :roll: Liz.
- Liz
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:57 am
- Location: East Yorkshire, England.
by xrn » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:56 am
Hi Liz,
I am sorry to read of your horrible experiences with statins. I have had quite a scare just reading about the harm caused by statins (I have just been prescribed them and refuse to take them) and I am trying to create the sort of publicity so that the problems can be examined impartially.
in my opinion, it is not Q10 that the health service must provide to the people it places on statins, rather that the health service must stop prescribing statins in the first place. I have recently written to the minister for public health (Caroline Flint MP) and I am currently awaiting a reply. Whatever the reply, I will be using it as a basis to generate some dialogue in the national press.
Once I have received a reply to my letter, I will post the letter and the reply here. Perhaps you could interest your local paper in publishing your story. National papers have an arrangement for local journalists to pick up stories of national interest.
It is scandalous that large numbers of people are being prescribed these drugs, when the use of statins is predicated on questionable theories and methodologies. The recent abandonment of a phase 3 clinical trial that appeared to be killing more people than expected should help to provide the impetus to impose a global moratorium on the prescription of these drugs.
I was distressed to learn that statins are available as an over-the-counter (OTC) medication, in the UK. Iwas even more upset to learn that information concerning statin uptake and usage (purely from OTC purchases) was available from the following URL...
[http://www.leaddiscovery.co.uk/reports/OTC%20Statins%20-%20The%20UK%20Experience.html]
...but to read that information one has to pay a whopping $1900 for the privilege. So much for any freedom of information act! The quotation below is from the blurb giving reasons for purchasing the report.
(quote) "Given the low understanding of cholesterol and cardiovascular risk, a simple marketing message supported by a lifestyle modification programs is needed to sustain long-term use of OTC statins and to gain the endorsement of the switch from other stakeholders."(unquote)
So you see, you are not a sick person to the drug companies, you are in need of a simple marketing message to "SUSTAIN THE LONG-TERM USE OF STATINS" (my emphasis)
The link to other 'related reports' is, sadly, all too revealing, as evidenced by the price - $15200! Yes that's $74.50 for every precious page of a 204 page report entitled "Dyslipidemia - Statins Dominate Treatment Pathway".
The idea that you are an unwell person looking for help is not quite how you are viewed by the drug companies. I was incandescent after reading the blurb that one could read without paying the extortionate fee demanded and it bears reproducing in toto. vis.
(quote)
Introduction
Datamonitor estimates that there are 267m people in the seven major markets with total cholesterol >200mg/dL which is set to rise to 287m in 2015. Despite this vast patient potential, low diagnosis rates limit the market size, and with the launch of generic statins, and the maturing of the market, it is increasingly important for companies to target the under-treated dyslipidemia sub-populations.
Scope of this report
180 physician interviews carried out across the seven major pharmaceutical markets, plus the views of key industry opinion leaders
Examination of dyslipidemia patient potential, detailing the current and future prevalence of high total cholesterol
Detailed treatment trees to show dyslipidemia patient flows at country levels (US, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK)
Expected future prescribing rates for combination therapy and new agents, such as Vytorin (ezetimibe + simvastatin) and atorvastatin and torcetrapib
[my note:] the last compound (atorvastatin combined with torcetrapib) has just been the subject of a phase 3 clinical trial, that had to be abandoned on December 2nd 2006 by Pfizer, because of an unexplained and unexpected raise in death rates! [end of my note]
Highlights of this report
Dyslipidemia patients are often plagued with risk factors and co-morbidities that increase their relative risk considerably. Datamonitor research found that a high percentage of patients with dyslipidemia also suffer from obesity, hypertension and type 2 diabetes, representing a potentially lucrative target.
[my note: you should understand that the only thing that you represent to the drug companies is that you are a potentially lucrative target]
The more aggressive approach to LDL lowering, and lower treatment thresholds recommended in updated guidelines means a greater patient population. However, increasing awareness in physicians and in the general population is essential to increase diagnosis and thus treatment rates.
[my note: I wonder where the push for more agressive treatment of LDL cholesterol is coming from... don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question and the answer is obvious]
Physicians predict that combination therapy will play an increasingly important role over the next three years. Given the highly competitive nature of the antidyslipidemic market, companies that can position novel products as effective treatments for use in combination therapy are likely to be the most successful.
[my note: to hell with does it work... just position novel treatments, eh?]
Reasons to Purchase this report
Gain independent insight into the management of dyslipidemia and understand what factors influence physicians' prescribing practices
Assess the future direction of dyslipidemia therapy, and the remaining unmet needs in order to successfully manage your developmental products
[my note: nothing here about understanding the risks or the harm caused by statins, that is already well documented in the medical literature... this recommendation to understand the factors which influence clinicians prescribing practices is, in my view not that far removed from subverting the physician's normal patient management.]
Identify lucrative new target populations in order to create new opportunities in this market.(unquote)
[my note: the current 'market' of 267million people is not enough but lucrative new target populations are being sought. The gravy train that is statin production has got to be stopped before we begin to see our children being prescribed statins for prophylactic reasons!]
regards,
xrn
I am sorry to read of your horrible experiences with statins. I have had quite a scare just reading about the harm caused by statins (I have just been prescribed them and refuse to take them) and I am trying to create the sort of publicity so that the problems can be examined impartially.
in my opinion, it is not Q10 that the health service must provide to the people it places on statins, rather that the health service must stop prescribing statins in the first place. I have recently written to the minister for public health (Caroline Flint MP) and I am currently awaiting a reply. Whatever the reply, I will be using it as a basis to generate some dialogue in the national press.
Once I have received a reply to my letter, I will post the letter and the reply here. Perhaps you could interest your local paper in publishing your story. National papers have an arrangement for local journalists to pick up stories of national interest.
It is scandalous that large numbers of people are being prescribed these drugs, when the use of statins is predicated on questionable theories and methodologies. The recent abandonment of a phase 3 clinical trial that appeared to be killing more people than expected should help to provide the impetus to impose a global moratorium on the prescription of these drugs.
I was distressed to learn that statins are available as an over-the-counter (OTC) medication, in the UK. Iwas even more upset to learn that information concerning statin uptake and usage (purely from OTC purchases) was available from the following URL...
[http://www.leaddiscovery.co.uk/reports/OTC%20Statins%20-%20The%20UK%20Experience.html]
...but to read that information one has to pay a whopping $1900 for the privilege. So much for any freedom of information act! The quotation below is from the blurb giving reasons for purchasing the report.
(quote) "Given the low understanding of cholesterol and cardiovascular risk, a simple marketing message supported by a lifestyle modification programs is needed to sustain long-term use of OTC statins and to gain the endorsement of the switch from other stakeholders."(unquote)
So you see, you are not a sick person to the drug companies, you are in need of a simple marketing message to "SUSTAIN THE LONG-TERM USE OF STATINS" (my emphasis)
The link to other 'related reports' is, sadly, all too revealing, as evidenced by the price - $15200! Yes that's $74.50 for every precious page of a 204 page report entitled "Dyslipidemia - Statins Dominate Treatment Pathway".
The idea that you are an unwell person looking for help is not quite how you are viewed by the drug companies. I was incandescent after reading the blurb that one could read without paying the extortionate fee demanded and it bears reproducing in toto. vis.
(quote)
Introduction
Datamonitor estimates that there are 267m people in the seven major markets with total cholesterol >200mg/dL which is set to rise to 287m in 2015. Despite this vast patient potential, low diagnosis rates limit the market size, and with the launch of generic statins, and the maturing of the market, it is increasingly important for companies to target the under-treated dyslipidemia sub-populations.
Scope of this report
180 physician interviews carried out across the seven major pharmaceutical markets, plus the views of key industry opinion leaders
Examination of dyslipidemia patient potential, detailing the current and future prevalence of high total cholesterol
Detailed treatment trees to show dyslipidemia patient flows at country levels (US, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK)
Expected future prescribing rates for combination therapy and new agents, such as Vytorin (ezetimibe + simvastatin) and atorvastatin and torcetrapib
[my note:] the last compound (atorvastatin combined with torcetrapib) has just been the subject of a phase 3 clinical trial, that had to be abandoned on December 2nd 2006 by Pfizer, because of an unexplained and unexpected raise in death rates! [end of my note]
Highlights of this report
Dyslipidemia patients are often plagued with risk factors and co-morbidities that increase their relative risk considerably. Datamonitor research found that a high percentage of patients with dyslipidemia also suffer from obesity, hypertension and type 2 diabetes, representing a potentially lucrative target.
[my note: you should understand that the only thing that you represent to the drug companies is that you are a potentially lucrative target]
The more aggressive approach to LDL lowering, and lower treatment thresholds recommended in updated guidelines means a greater patient population. However, increasing awareness in physicians and in the general population is essential to increase diagnosis and thus treatment rates.
[my note: I wonder where the push for more agressive treatment of LDL cholesterol is coming from... don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question and the answer is obvious]
Physicians predict that combination therapy will play an increasingly important role over the next three years. Given the highly competitive nature of the antidyslipidemic market, companies that can position novel products as effective treatments for use in combination therapy are likely to be the most successful.
[my note: to hell with does it work... just position novel treatments, eh?]
Reasons to Purchase this report
Gain independent insight into the management of dyslipidemia and understand what factors influence physicians' prescribing practices
Assess the future direction of dyslipidemia therapy, and the remaining unmet needs in order to successfully manage your developmental products
[my note: nothing here about understanding the risks or the harm caused by statins, that is already well documented in the medical literature... this recommendation to understand the factors which influence clinicians prescribing practices is, in my view not that far removed from subverting the physician's normal patient management.]
Identify lucrative new target populations in order to create new opportunities in this market.(unquote)
[my note: the current 'market' of 267million people is not enough but lucrative new target populations are being sought. The gravy train that is statin production has got to be stopped before we begin to see our children being prescribed statins for prophylactic reasons!]
regards,
xrn
- xrn
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:19 am
- Location: Bedfordshire UK
by Biologist » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:06 pm
xrn,
Good post. Thanks.
Truly scandalous information.
I read the following over the weekend -- and it about took that long! It's a bit hard to follow, but you and a few others may find it VERY revealing on several statin-related fronts -- once you get use to the odd formatting. The ongoing thread takes place over several years (2002 to 2005 as the latest posing -- last one for now, that is) -- don't be too surprised to see "Biologist" post there before too long! But I'm not in any hurry. One of my questions will be:
"Dr. Harris and/or Dr. Rine, have you actually read the books that you mentioned, including the one by Dr. Graveline?"
[http://yarchive.net/med/statins.html]
What we have is a couple of doctors (one from Harvard, and the other being more well known in the US medical community than most) discussing statins and fielding complaints and concerns by some statins suffers. Bet they didn't know their comments would be showing up on this site! Dr. Graveline is even dismissively mentioned at one point. Boooo! Hisss! What a mistake! Biologist do not like that very much.
Sharon Hope, the lady whose husband was the CEO of a company who was ruined by statins is one of the posters. (Discussed by Dr. Graveline in one of his articles, I believe.) She holds her own pretty well taking on these two guys -- and it gets pretty nasty at times! I don't mean to villainize these fellas too much -- remember, they are "victims" too in a way. They really just still don't completely "get it" yet -- but I believe they will eventually. They just don't see the whole statin picture yet -- statins are just not the wonder drugs they still hope and believe they are. It is going to be hard for them to admit what they have done to others -- and possibley to themselves. You see, one, if not both, take statins themselves. (Dr. Harris, who incidentally, I have much respect for after reading him for several years, says he would be on them right now but is doing research on CoQ10 with himself as one of the subjects and does not want to screw up the numbers by dosing himself with statins right now -- he better just stick with the CoQ10 as long as possible). These guys are damn smart, and they have some good points here and there, for sure. I do believe they mean well. And also, maybe they are right overall. I don't think so, but we will see over time.
Be a fly on the wall.
If I evenutally post, I promise to be nice. Well, sorta nice...
Biologist
Good post. Thanks.
Truly scandalous information.
I read the following over the weekend -- and it about took that long! It's a bit hard to follow, but you and a few others may find it VERY revealing on several statin-related fronts -- once you get use to the odd formatting. The ongoing thread takes place over several years (2002 to 2005 as the latest posing -- last one for now, that is) -- don't be too surprised to see "Biologist" post there before too long! But I'm not in any hurry. One of my questions will be:
"Dr. Harris and/or Dr. Rine, have you actually read the books that you mentioned, including the one by Dr. Graveline?"
[http://yarchive.net/med/statins.html]
What we have is a couple of doctors (one from Harvard, and the other being more well known in the US medical community than most) discussing statins and fielding complaints and concerns by some statins suffers. Bet they didn't know their comments would be showing up on this site! Dr. Graveline is even dismissively mentioned at one point. Boooo! Hisss! What a mistake! Biologist do not like that very much.
Sharon Hope, the lady whose husband was the CEO of a company who was ruined by statins is one of the posters. (Discussed by Dr. Graveline in one of his articles, I believe.) She holds her own pretty well taking on these two guys -- and it gets pretty nasty at times! I don't mean to villainize these fellas too much -- remember, they are "victims" too in a way. They really just still don't completely "get it" yet -- but I believe they will eventually. They just don't see the whole statin picture yet -- statins are just not the wonder drugs they still hope and believe they are. It is going to be hard for them to admit what they have done to others -- and possibley to themselves. You see, one, if not both, take statins themselves. (Dr. Harris, who incidentally, I have much respect for after reading him for several years, says he would be on them right now but is doing research on CoQ10 with himself as one of the subjects and does not want to screw up the numbers by dosing himself with statins right now -- he better just stick with the CoQ10 as long as possible). These guys are damn smart, and they have some good points here and there, for sure. I do believe they mean well. And also, maybe they are right overall. I don't think so, but we will see over time.
Be a fly on the wall.
If I evenutally post, I promise to be nice. Well, sorta nice...
Biologist
- Biologist
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm
by xrn » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:22 pm
[Biologist] Truly scandalous information.[/Biologist]
Truly! It shows that the patient is held in utter contempt by the pharmaceutical companies. Ill people are merely the current cash cow (to be mercilessly milked) until yet another far more lucrative cow arrives.
[Biologist] I read the following over the weekend -- and it about took that long! It's a bit hard to follow, but you and a few others may find it VERY revealing on several statin-related fronts -- once you get use to the odd formatting. The ongoing thread takes place over several years (2002 to 2005 as the latest posing -- last one for now, that is) -- don't be too surprised to see "Biologist" post there before too long! But I'm not in any hurry. One of my questions will be:
"Dr. Harris and/or Dr. Rine, have you actually read the books that you mentioned, including the one by Dr. Graveline?"[/Biologist]
I had a look and concluded, from the first post in 2002, where Harris refers to any detractors with a curt "yep, the dumb ones", that I don't want to know what he thinks. If he is so dismissive of a different viewpoint to his own, then dialogue is not going to take place.
My wife would tell me that there are no cures for stupidity... only death. It is a Japanese proverb that illuminates the point that death will supervene anyway and there is no point wasting one's preciosu breath in trying to educate the congenitally stupid. (Harris)
[Biologist] What we have is a couple of doctors (one from Harvard, and the other being more well known in the US medical community than most) discussing statins and fielding complaints and concerns by some statins suffers. Bet they didn't know their comments would be showing up on this site! Dr. Graveline is even dismissively mentioned at one point. Boooo! Hisss! What a mistake! Biologist do not like that very much. [/Biologist]
Sadly, I have my doubts about the value of a site that has languished since 2005. The newer compounds will need to be included. The rationale behind creating compounds is often because of the synergy demonstrated. The recent Pfizer debacle shows that they got that part of the equasion hopelessly wrong. I feel desperately sorry for the newly bereaved once they learn that the statin mediated death of a loved one was, essentially, entirely unnecessary.
[Biologist] Sharon Hope, the lady whose husband was the CEO of a company who was ruined by statins is one of the posters. (Discussed by Dr. Graveline in one of his articles, I believe.) She holds her own pretty well taking on these two guys -- and it gets pretty nasty at times! I don't mean to villainize these fellas too much -- remember, they are "victims" too in a way. [/Biologist]
An interesting point of view there... I think I can see what you mean but then, they have a choice to remain stupid, whereas once a patient has swallowed their statin Rx, they don't get a say in which components they want to take and which they leave out... neither do they get a say in what sort of ADR they will experience. just my ¢0.02
[Biologist] They really just still don't completely "get it" yet -- but I believe they will eventually. They just don't see the whole statin picture yet -- statins are just not the wonder drugs they still hope and believe they are. It is going to be hard for them to admit what they have done to others -- and possibley to themselves. You see, one, if not both, take statins themselves.[/Biologist]
Poetic...
[Biologist] (Dr. Harris, who incidentally, I have much respect for after reading him for several years, says he would be on them right now but is doing research on CoQ10 with himself as one of the subjects and does not want to screw up the numbers by dosing himself with statins right now -- he better just stick with the CoQ10 as long as possible). These guys are damn smart, and they have some good points here and there, for sure. I do believe they mean well. And also, maybe they are right overall. I don't think so, but we will see over time. [Biologist]
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I dislike certainty when expressed by relatively young people, who appear to know absolutely everything. As the years mount... it is very likely that we will see that we truly know and understand very little.
Regards,
xrn
Truly! It shows that the patient is held in utter contempt by the pharmaceutical companies. Ill people are merely the current cash cow (to be mercilessly milked) until yet another far more lucrative cow arrives.
[Biologist] I read the following over the weekend -- and it about took that long! It's a bit hard to follow, but you and a few others may find it VERY revealing on several statin-related fronts -- once you get use to the odd formatting. The ongoing thread takes place over several years (2002 to 2005 as the latest posing -- last one for now, that is) -- don't be too surprised to see "Biologist" post there before too long! But I'm not in any hurry. One of my questions will be:
"Dr. Harris and/or Dr. Rine, have you actually read the books that you mentioned, including the one by Dr. Graveline?"[/Biologist]
I had a look and concluded, from the first post in 2002, where Harris refers to any detractors with a curt "yep, the dumb ones", that I don't want to know what he thinks. If he is so dismissive of a different viewpoint to his own, then dialogue is not going to take place.
My wife would tell me that there are no cures for stupidity... only death. It is a Japanese proverb that illuminates the point that death will supervene anyway and there is no point wasting one's preciosu breath in trying to educate the congenitally stupid. (Harris)
[Biologist] What we have is a couple of doctors (one from Harvard, and the other being more well known in the US medical community than most) discussing statins and fielding complaints and concerns by some statins suffers. Bet they didn't know their comments would be showing up on this site! Dr. Graveline is even dismissively mentioned at one point. Boooo! Hisss! What a mistake! Biologist do not like that very much.
[/Biologist]
Sadly, I have my doubts about the value of a site that has languished since 2005. The newer compounds will need to be included. The rationale behind creating compounds is often because of the synergy demonstrated. The recent Pfizer debacle shows that they got that part of the equasion hopelessly wrong. I feel desperately sorry for the newly bereaved once they learn that the statin mediated death of a loved one was, essentially, entirely unnecessary.
[Biologist] Sharon Hope, the lady whose husband was the CEO of a company who was ruined by statins is one of the posters. (Discussed by Dr. Graveline in one of his articles, I believe.) She holds her own pretty well taking on these two guys -- and it gets pretty nasty at times! I don't mean to villainize these fellas too much -- remember, they are "victims" too in a way. [/Biologist]
An interesting point of view there... I think I can see what you mean but then, they have a choice to remain stupid, whereas once a patient has swallowed their statin Rx, they don't get a say in which components they want to take and which they leave out... neither do they get a say in what sort of ADR they will experience. just my ¢0.02
[Biologist] They really just still don't completely "get it" yet -- but I believe they will eventually. They just don't see the whole statin picture yet -- statins are just not the wonder drugs they still hope and believe they are. It is going to be hard for them to admit what they have done to others -- and possibley to themselves. You see, one, if not both, take statins themselves.[/Biologist]
Poetic...
[Biologist] (Dr. Harris, who incidentally, I have much respect for after reading him for several years, says he would be on them right now but is doing research on CoQ10 with himself as one of the subjects and does not want to screw up the numbers by dosing himself with statins right now -- he better just stick with the CoQ10 as long as possible). These guys are damn smart, and they have some good points here and there, for sure. I do believe they mean well. And also, maybe they are right overall. I don't think so, but we will see over time. [Biologist]
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I dislike certainty when expressed by relatively young people, who appear to know absolutely everything. As the years mount... it is very likely that we will see that we truly know and understand very little.
Regards,
xrn
- xrn
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:19 am
- Location: Bedfordshire UK
by Biologist » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:14 pm
Truly! It shows that the patient is held in utter
contempt by the pharmaceutical companies.
Ill people are merely the current cash cow (to
be mercilessly milked) until yet another far
more lucrative cow arrives.
--xrn
Yep, you absolutely NAILED IT. BTW, the following hyprlink may be part of the next Cash Cow. I don't quite know what is going on here, but I'm not sure I like it. I have not even read the whole thing (and may not) as someone just emailed it to me: [http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron18.htm]
"I had a look and concluded, from the first post in
2002, where Harris refers to any detractors with
a curt "yep, the dumb ones", that I don't want to
know what he thinks. If he is so dismissive of a
different viewpoint to his own, then dialogue is
not going to take place."
--xrn
That was my first impression too. Pissed me off. But keep in mind, this is a conversation not necessarily intended for wide public consumption -- we truly are a fly on the wall. An unintended one. These people know each other and don't mince words (nor take offense). Also, this was written in 2002 when there was not quite the public outcry at the time. You will detect him evolve "over the years" should you continue to read.
"I dislike certainty when expressed by relatively
young people, who appear to know absolutely
everything."
--xrn
Yep, same here, regardless of age.
Between you and me, I believe they were/are wrong as hell, but I don't want to appear too close minded right from the start. That's one of the reasons I wrote this:
"I do believe they mean well. And also, maybe
they are right overall. I don't think so, but we
will see over time."
--Biologist
They are at least willing to discuss their (biased & wrong, in my opinion) points of view on the Web. Don't want to beat them up too much for that reason alone -- they are likely representative of what the medical community thinks (or thought at the time) and we get to see how they think -- and evolve. Their "evolution" may be the reason for the silence in 2006. They may be "getting it" better now. This site and others may be part of the reason.
BTW, I have read Harris on a several other issues where I agreed with him. Obviously I was not impressed with this section of his writings. He might be different on the issue now. If that thread is closed, I might even email him and invite him to comment on this forum in this thread.
The question on their minds (as doctors) is/was whether there is more good done than harm done for the millions of people on "appropriate doses" (which would be tiny doses, if anything, as we now know). But even that is a mute question if the entire Cholesterol Theory is wrong -- which I believe it is -- and even if there is some truth to it, the question is also mute if there are safer ways to lower cholesterol than the dangerous statins.
BTW, my guess is that both of these doctors would cringe at the though of OTC statins.
Biologist
contempt by the pharmaceutical companies.
Ill people are merely the current cash cow (to
be mercilessly milked) until yet another far
more lucrative cow arrives.
--xrn
Yep, you absolutely NAILED IT. BTW, the following hyprlink may be part of the next Cash Cow. I don't quite know what is going on here, but I'm not sure I like it. I have not even read the whole thing (and may not) as someone just emailed it to me: [http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron18.htm]
"I had a look and concluded, from the first post in
2002, where Harris refers to any detractors with
a curt "yep, the dumb ones", that I don't want to
know what he thinks. If he is so dismissive of a
different viewpoint to his own, then dialogue is
not going to take place."
--xrn
That was my first impression too. Pissed me off. But keep in mind, this is a conversation not necessarily intended for wide public consumption -- we truly are a fly on the wall. An unintended one. These people know each other and don't mince words (nor take offense). Also, this was written in 2002 when there was not quite the public outcry at the time. You will detect him evolve "over the years" should you continue to read.
"I dislike certainty when expressed by relatively
young people, who appear to know absolutely
everything."
--xrn
Yep, same here, regardless of age.
Between you and me, I believe they were/are wrong as hell, but I don't want to appear too close minded right from the start. That's one of the reasons I wrote this:
"I do believe they mean well. And also, maybe
they are right overall. I don't think so, but we
will see over time."
--Biologist
They are at least willing to discuss their (biased & wrong, in my opinion) points of view on the Web. Don't want to beat them up too much for that reason alone -- they are likely representative of what the medical community thinks (or thought at the time) and we get to see how they think -- and evolve. Their "evolution" may be the reason for the silence in 2006. They may be "getting it" better now. This site and others may be part of the reason.
BTW, I have read Harris on a several other issues where I agreed with him. Obviously I was not impressed with this section of his writings. He might be different on the issue now. If that thread is closed, I might even email him and invite him to comment on this forum in this thread.
The question on their minds (as doctors) is/was whether there is more good done than harm done for the millions of people on "appropriate doses" (which would be tiny doses, if anything, as we now know). But even that is a mute question if the entire Cholesterol Theory is wrong -- which I believe it is -- and even if there is some truth to it, the question is also mute if there are safer ways to lower cholesterol than the dangerous statins.
BTW, my guess is that both of these doctors would cringe at the though of OTC statins.
Biologist
- Biologist
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm
by xrn » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:22 pm
"Yep, you absolutely NAILED IT. BTW, the following hyprlink may be part of the next Cash Cow. I don't quite know what is going on here, but I'm not sure I like it. I have not even read the whole thing (and may not) as someone just emailed it to me: [http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron18.htm"]
I read the article and can see some merit in publication but I found the tone to be a little rabid. Reporting adverse reactions to the FDA is already available to the public who use them and the companies that produce vitamin supplements. The bill looks as if it designed to prevent small companies from marketing their own version of whatever herbal/natural remedy is currently fashionable.
It is a bit smelly in that it certainly looks as if it is paving the way for large pharmaceutical companies to have little or no competion from the natural remedy manufacturers. In the final analysis, I think it muddies the water a little. What is far more important are the controls that can be applied to pharmaceutical companies. If this step looks a little excessive, then I believe that the price is worth paying (small start up companies will aways be with us) for when a frontal assault is mounted on unscrupulous big pharma.
If thepharmaceutical industry was heled up to the standards they want for vitamin companies, then we might see some safer practices being employed for the good of the patient. I wont be holding my breath though. The vast profits made by the drug industry are the thing that, to an extent, protects them. They all seem to feel unassailable and it is long overdue that the tail (big pharma) stopped wagging this particular dog. (humans who are ill)
"That was my first impression too. Pissed me off. But keep in mind, this is a conversation not necessarily intended for wide public consumption -- we truly are a fly on the wall. An unintended one. These people know each other and don't mince words (nor take offense). Also, this was written in 2002 when there was not quite the public outcry at the time. You will detect him evolve "over the years" should you continue to read."
Hmmm... if people cannot discuss anything respectfully when they are in private, in my experience they are most unlikely to be sincere when in public. I tend to think that it is the unguarded moment, that single sliver of time, when we see the precise nature of just who we are dealing with. First impressions are usually accurate... more often than not. It is a survival technique that we have inherited across the aeons from early man and I trust it, implicitly.
"Yep, same here, regardless of age.
Between you and me, I believe they were/are wrong as hell, but I don't want to appear too close minded right from the start. That's one of the reasons I wrote this:
"I do believe they mean well. And also, maybe
they are right overall. I don't think so, but we
will see over time."
--Biologist"
Good, we agree on this fundamental issue. Being wrong is not the problem per se. Being unable to see it or to retrace one's steps is usually where being wroing creates additional problems.
"They are at least willing to discuss their (biased & wrong, in my opinion) points of view on the Web. Don't want to beat them up too much for that reason alone -- they are likely representative of what the medical community thinks (or thought at the time) and we get to see how they think -- and evolve."
A fair point, well made. I feel a bit shell-shocked at the moment and so I feel unwilling to negotiate with the medical profession or its representatives but in truth, that is likely going to be the only way forward.
"Their "evolution" may be the reason for the silence in 2006. They may be "getting it" better now. This site and others may be part of the reason".
I bless the internet daily... it wont be fettered and knowledge once released cannot be taken back. I see why many governments fear it but to my mind, it is one of the saving graces of the last and this century. Technological advances may well have lessened the need for certain jobs and possibly damaged our environment in the production of silicon and plastic tech tools but we have the 'net and we need not be quiet any longer.
"BTW, I have read Harris on a several other issues where I agreed with him. Obviously I was not impressed with this section of his writings. He might be different on the issue now. If that thread is closed, I might even email him and invite him to comment on this forum in this thread".
Yes, it would be very useful to hear what the latest thoughts of the medical profession are, wrt statin therapy. I agree that we should invite him to speak to the forum. [gets Glock 10]
"The question on their minds (as doctors) is/was whether there is more good done than harm done for the millions of people on "appropriate doses" (which would be tiny doses, if anything, as we now know). But even that is a mute question if the entire Cholesterol Theory is wrong -- which I believe it is -- and even if there is some truth to it, the question is also mute if there are safer ways to lower cholesterol than the dangerous statins."
Would that it were so simple... research is funded by the pharmaceuticals companies. I was assisting with phases 2 & 3 of a global multi-centre clinical trial and it has to be said that the drug company had more money than enough to throw at the project.
I had travelled by air (first class) and stayed in hotel rooms, for long periods, that were costing $1200 per night just for the room. Add the extra $500 per day for food and you can see how easily the view of the providing drug company can become dicta.
The drug companies set the research agenda themselves, either directly because they propose it to their favourite (read symapathetic) clinicians or they find a few stooges who are looking for an easy publication and the companies dictate the nature of the research by promising the funding for it.
What is required is a massive and government funded look at the theories behind cholesterol and the impact of lowering it. while drug companies have any fingers in the pie, the research has to be considered to be tainted, in my view.
"BTW, my guess is that both of these doctors would cringe at the though of OTC statins".
Mayhap... mayhap... but if that is the case, then where is their voice?
regards,
xrn
I read the article and can see some merit in publication but I found the tone to be a little rabid. Reporting adverse reactions to the FDA is already available to the public who use them and the companies that produce vitamin supplements. The bill looks as if it designed to prevent small companies from marketing their own version of whatever herbal/natural remedy is currently fashionable.
It is a bit smelly in that it certainly looks as if it is paving the way for large pharmaceutical companies to have little or no competion from the natural remedy manufacturers. In the final analysis, I think it muddies the water a little. What is far more important are the controls that can be applied to pharmaceutical companies. If this step looks a little excessive, then I believe that the price is worth paying (small start up companies will aways be with us) for when a frontal assault is mounted on unscrupulous big pharma.
If thepharmaceutical industry was heled up to the standards they want for vitamin companies, then we might see some safer practices being employed for the good of the patient. I wont be holding my breath though. The vast profits made by the drug industry are the thing that, to an extent, protects them. They all seem to feel unassailable and it is long overdue that the tail (big pharma) stopped wagging this particular dog. (humans who are ill)
"That was my first impression too. Pissed me off. But keep in mind, this is a conversation not necessarily intended for wide public consumption -- we truly are a fly on the wall. An unintended one. These people know each other and don't mince words (nor take offense). Also, this was written in 2002 when there was not quite the public outcry at the time. You will detect him evolve "over the years" should you continue to read."
Hmmm... if people cannot discuss anything respectfully when they are in private, in my experience they are most unlikely to be sincere when in public. I tend to think that it is the unguarded moment, that single sliver of time, when we see the precise nature of just who we are dealing with. First impressions are usually accurate... more often than not. It is a survival technique that we have inherited across the aeons from early man and I trust it, implicitly.
"Yep, same here, regardless of age.
Between you and me, I believe they were/are wrong as hell, but I don't want to appear too close minded right from the start. That's one of the reasons I wrote this:
"I do believe they mean well. And also, maybe
they are right overall. I don't think so, but we
will see over time."
--Biologist"
Good, we agree on this fundamental issue.
Being wrong is not the problem per se. Being unable to see it or to retrace one's steps is usually where being wroing creates additional problems.
"They are at least willing to discuss their (biased & wrong, in my opinion) points of view on the Web. Don't want to beat them up too much for that reason alone -- they are likely representative of what the medical community thinks (or thought at the time) and we get to see how they think -- and evolve."
A fair point, well made. I feel a bit shell-shocked at the moment and so I feel unwilling to negotiate with the medical profession or its representatives but in truth, that is likely going to be the only way forward.
"Their "evolution" may be the reason for the silence in 2006. They may be "getting it" better now. This site and others may be part of the reason".
I bless the internet daily... it wont be fettered and knowledge once released cannot be taken back. I see why many governments fear it but to my mind, it is one of the saving graces of the last and this century. Technological advances may well have lessened the need for certain jobs and possibly damaged our environment in the production of silicon and plastic tech tools but we have the 'net and we need not be quiet any longer.
"BTW, I have read Harris on a several other issues where I agreed with him. Obviously I was not impressed with this section of his writings. He might be different on the issue now. If that thread is closed, I might even email him and invite him to comment on this forum in this thread".
Yes, it would be very useful to hear what the latest thoughts of the medical profession are, wrt statin therapy. I agree that we should invite him to speak to the forum. [gets Glock 10]
"The question on their minds (as doctors) is/was whether there is more good done than harm done for the millions of people on "appropriate doses" (which would be tiny doses, if anything, as we now know). But even that is a mute question if the entire Cholesterol Theory is wrong -- which I believe it is -- and even if there is some truth to it, the question is also mute if there are safer ways to lower cholesterol than the dangerous statins."
Would that it were so simple... research is funded by the pharmaceuticals companies. I was assisting with phases 2 & 3 of a global multi-centre clinical trial and it has to be said that the drug company had more money than enough to throw at the project.
I had travelled by air (first class) and stayed in hotel rooms, for long periods, that were costing $1200 per night just for the room. Add the extra $500 per day for food and you can see how easily the view of the providing drug company can become dicta.
The drug companies set the research agenda themselves, either directly because they propose it to their favourite (read symapathetic) clinicians or they find a few stooges who are looking for an easy publication and the companies dictate the nature of the research by promising the funding for it.
What is required is a massive and government funded look at the theories behind cholesterol and the impact of lowering it. while drug companies have any fingers in the pie, the research has to be considered to be tainted, in my view.
"BTW, my guess is that both of these doctors would cringe at the though of OTC statins".
Mayhap... mayhap... but if that is the case, then where is their voice?
regards,
xrn
- xrn
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:19 am
- Location: Bedfordshire UK
by Biologist » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:12 pm
A complaint I had from the start of that thread was the emphasis by the doctors on the Pharma-sponsored studies. That struck me as naive at best, particularly after reading several books which showed how the studies were flawed or intentionally misinterpreted by reviewers. That is why I would ask if they had actually read these books themselves. They admit that the alternative (safer) methods of lowering cholesterol and more importantly, inflammation, are not funded. That's huge! I'm not interested in hearing that alternative methods are simply not proven. Yeah? Well, let's get to it!
I was also disappointed at the apparent lack of concern that negative findings in the data from several studies was simply not released -- even after formal request. That's corruption if you ask me -- patients "pay" for this data by the cost of the prescriptions.
However, later in the thread you start to see some critical questioning of the studies by the doctors for the first time, and the last "case study" presented by a research academic poster of his own history of cognitive dysfunction on statins appeared to have an impact on them. He made his case well.
You are right that the temptation to shill for the drug companies is intense.
Biologist
I was also disappointed at the apparent lack of concern that negative findings in the data from several studies was simply not released -- even after formal request. That's corruption if you ask me -- patients "pay" for this data by the cost of the prescriptions.
However, later in the thread you start to see some critical questioning of the studies by the doctors for the first time, and the last "case study" presented by a research academic poster of his own history of cognitive dysfunction on statins appeared to have an impact on them. He made his case well.
You are right that the temptation to shill for the drug companies is intense.
Biologist
- Biologist
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm
Reply for "Biologist"
by sos_group_owner » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:12 pm
Hi Biologist,
Re: They admit that the alternative (safer) methods of lowering cholesterol and more importantly, inflammation, are not funded. That's huge! I'm not interested in hearing that alternative methods are simply not proven. Yeah? Well, let's get to it!
The primary reason (IMO) for 'no funding' IS... that the way to reduce 'inflammation' doesn't require drugs... hence, no $$$ for funding testing nutrition and nutritional supplements. Example(s): benefits of low carb, especially eliminating the 'white foods' (controls blood sugar levels & triglycerides), the B's (controls homocysteine), CoQ10 (overall cardio benefit), etc.
One of my favorite articles is written by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, "Is Heart Disease All Due to Blood Clots?"
A couple of excerpts from his article:
"Things that create 'free radicals' and oxidized LDL... Smoking, high blood sugar levels (diabetes), stress... Risk factors that damage the 'endothelium' include elevated levels of homocysteine, blood sugar, insulin, cortisol (stress hormones), triglycerides, smoking and deficiency in some vitamins, such as C and the B's."
" This is a complex pathway. When platelets start to stick together, they release free radicals. "Free radicals" oxidise LDL. Oxidised LDL is a powerful blood clotting factor. LDL is also incorporated into the blood clot as it forms, and provides a `lipid' surface (along with VLDL) for the construction of fibrin. Fibrin is the hugely strong protein strand that binds a clot together and makes it `tough.' "
When you get a chance, read the complete article...
[http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.htm#clots]
Fran
Re: They admit that the alternative (safer) methods of lowering cholesterol and more importantly, inflammation, are not funded. That's huge! I'm not interested in hearing that alternative methods are simply not proven. Yeah? Well, let's get to it!
The primary reason (IMO) for 'no funding' IS... that the way to reduce 'inflammation' doesn't require drugs... hence, no $$$ for funding testing nutrition and nutritional supplements. Example(s): benefits of low carb, especially eliminating the 'white foods' (controls blood sugar levels & triglycerides), the B's (controls homocysteine), CoQ10 (overall cardio benefit), etc.
One of my favorite articles is written by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, "Is Heart Disease All Due to Blood Clots?"
A couple of excerpts from his article:
"Things that create 'free radicals' and oxidized LDL... Smoking, high blood sugar levels (diabetes), stress... Risk factors that damage the 'endothelium' include elevated levels of homocysteine, blood sugar, insulin, cortisol (stress hormones), triglycerides, smoking and deficiency in some vitamins, such as C and the B's."
" This is a complex pathway. When platelets start to stick together, they release free radicals. "Free radicals" oxidise LDL. Oxidised LDL is a powerful blood clotting factor. LDL is also incorporated into the blood clot as it forms, and provides a `lipid' surface (along with VLDL) for the construction of fibrin. Fibrin is the hugely strong protein strand that binds a clot together and makes it `tough.' "
When you get a chance, read the complete article...
[http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.htm#clots]
Fran
- sos_group_owner
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:03 pm
- Location: Connecticut
by xrn » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:35 am
"A complaint I had from the start of that thread was the emphasis by the doctors on the Pharma-sponsored studies"
Indeed! It is something of a self-fulfilling prophesy though. During my 30 year career in the health service of the UK, I wish I had got a penny for every junior medic whom I heard repeating a piece of 'received wisdom' that was flat out wrong. I can recall drug company reps asking people if they wanted a paid for night out. The answer was always yes and in those heady days it meant a 300 mile chopper ride to a night club in some far of glittering night spot. Not unaturally, the heads of junior medics would be turned by the largesse.
Not for nothing were giveaway diaries beautiful leather-bound desk affairs rather than more practical pocket-sized ring-bound ones. The drug company logo alwys appeared on everything... from the smart and expensive fountain pens to the swish laser pointers. All this was free to the medics with much of the effort being directed to the most junior medics. The constant advertising blurb (all beautifully produced) that praised the latest drug advances in medicine and underlined how much money the research study was given by the drug company, lent a kind of legitimacy to it... "the drug company had kindly supported this essential research and thereby, has advanced the boundaries of medicine".
It is a fact that junior medics have to follow the instructions of the consultant whom they work under. The consultant may believe in anything at all and the junior medic must work in a way that the consultant demands. The drug companies attack this issue in two ways. They appease the consultant by offering funding for drug company initiated research and often their are many perquisites that go with being a compliant (as far as the drug company is concerned) consultant... who is the person that is responsible for signing off on any particular treatment expenditure. Everything from paid for conferences in exotic locations to the development of widgets that a consultant may wish to bring to market, is used as an inducement to keep the clinician on-side.
Once the consultant has been influenced to use whatever product is being pushed by the drug companies, the attack focus shifts towards the junior medics. They will always do what the consultant instructs them to do so their immediate cooperation is assured. The prize for the drug companies is to make them familiar enough with a product so that its use falls well within their comfort zone and continues being recommended by the middle-grade clinician as the career progresses. The drug's predictability in use is the hook that keeps the clinician using it and the now middle-grade doctor carries a firm belief in the efficacy of the product and that tends to stay with them for the rest of their clinical career.
When they do, in turn, become consulting clinicians and can actually make changes to the spectrum of clinical practice in their own field of specialty... they frequently no longer see a need to depart from the comfortable drug regimes that they have regulary used and understand really well, and they are joined by their colleagues who also use and approve of the same treatments. The fact that a senior clinician is now using something that they had initially accepted uncritically, and that is surrounded by drug company initiated mythology, is neither here nor there. The drug company have gained widespread medical profession acceptance for their product and the cash registers roll on... unabated by critical analysis.
"That struck me as naive at best, particularly after reading several books which showed how the studies were flawed or intentionally misinterpreted by reviewers. That is why I would ask if they had actually read these books themselves. They admit that the alternative (safer) methods of lowering cholesterol and more importantly, inflammation, are not funded. That's huge! I'm not interested in hearing that alternative methods are simply not proven. Yeah? Well, let's get to it!"
I have yet to understand why lower cholesterol equates to good.
"I was also disappointed at the apparent lack of concern that negative findings in the data from several studies was simply not released -- even after formal request. That's corruption if you ask me -- patients "pay" for this data by the cost of the prescriptions."
This is the gist of my letter to the minister for public health in the UK. How are all of these negative findings continually being ignored? I don't want to shout "conspiracy" but I need some help in understanding how a whole profession can suspend its critical faculties and blindly accept deeply flawed science.
"However, later in the thread you start to see some critical questioning of the studies by the doctors for the first time, and the last "case study" presented by a research academic poster of his own history of cognitive dysfunction on statins appeared to have an impact on them. He made his case well."
I have been able to turn up a huge number of essays, analyses and research studies... all critical of statin therapy, and the medical hegemony are plainly just not listening. I would say that the minimum requirement now is to globally suspend all statin medication prescriptions, while the whole issue is revisited by those without a vested interest in the outcome.
"You are right that the temptation to shill for the drug companies is intense".
You can sing that one from the rooftops. the drug companies know what they want to achieve. My previous links show that they are considering the state of the world market in 2015. They are clearly looking for lucrative new markets... which to my mind makes them the very last authority on earth that I would trust to tell me about the intrinsic value of the crap that they are pushing on humanity. Elsewhere there are death penalties for drug pushers. Just because the harmful drugs on sale are purported to be for a medicinal purpose does not excuse the act of pushing dangerous drugs... does it?
Kind regards,
xrn
Indeed! It is something of a self-fulfilling prophesy though. During my 30 year career in the health service of the UK, I wish I had got a penny for every junior medic whom I heard repeating a piece of 'received wisdom' that was flat out wrong. I can recall drug company reps asking people if they wanted a paid for night out. The answer was always yes and in those heady days it meant a 300 mile chopper ride to a night club in some far of glittering night spot. Not unaturally, the heads of junior medics would be turned by the largesse.
Not for nothing were giveaway diaries beautiful leather-bound desk affairs rather than more practical pocket-sized ring-bound ones. The drug company logo alwys appeared on everything... from the smart and expensive fountain pens to the swish laser pointers. All this was free to the medics with much of the effort being directed to the most junior medics. The constant advertising blurb (all beautifully produced) that praised the latest drug advances in medicine and underlined how much money the research study was given by the drug company, lent a kind of legitimacy to it... "the drug company had kindly supported this essential research and thereby, has advanced the boundaries of medicine".
It is a fact that junior medics have to follow the instructions of the consultant whom they work under. The consultant may believe in anything at all and the junior medic must work in a way that the consultant demands. The drug companies attack this issue in two ways. They appease the consultant by offering funding for drug company initiated research and often their are many perquisites that go with being a compliant (as far as the drug company is concerned) consultant... who is the person that is responsible for signing off on any particular treatment expenditure. Everything from paid for conferences in exotic locations to the development of widgets that a consultant may wish to bring to market, is used as an inducement to keep the clinician on-side.
Once the consultant has been influenced to use whatever product is being pushed by the drug companies, the attack focus shifts towards the junior medics. They will always do what the consultant instructs them to do so their immediate cooperation is assured. The prize for the drug companies is to make them familiar enough with a product so that its use falls well within their comfort zone and continues being recommended by the middle-grade clinician as the career progresses. The drug's predictability in use is the hook that keeps the clinician using it and the now middle-grade doctor carries a firm belief in the efficacy of the product and that tends to stay with them for the rest of their clinical career.
When they do, in turn, become consulting clinicians and can actually make changes to the spectrum of clinical practice in their own field of specialty... they frequently no longer see a need to depart from the comfortable drug regimes that they have regulary used and understand really well, and they are joined by their colleagues who also use and approve of the same treatments. The fact that a senior clinician is now using something that they had initially accepted uncritically, and that is surrounded by drug company initiated mythology, is neither here nor there. The drug company have gained widespread medical profession acceptance for their product and the cash registers roll on... unabated by critical analysis.
"That struck me as naive at best, particularly after reading several books which showed how the studies were flawed or intentionally misinterpreted by reviewers. That is why I would ask if they had actually read these books themselves. They admit that the alternative (safer) methods of lowering cholesterol and more importantly, inflammation, are not funded. That's huge! I'm not interested in hearing that alternative methods are simply not proven. Yeah? Well, let's get to it!"
I have yet to understand why lower cholesterol equates to good.
"I was also disappointed at the apparent lack of concern that negative findings in the data from several studies was simply not released -- even after formal request. That's corruption if you ask me -- patients "pay" for this data by the cost of the prescriptions."
This is the gist of my letter to the minister for public health in the UK. How are all of these negative findings continually being ignored? I don't want to shout "conspiracy" but I need some help in understanding how a whole profession can suspend its critical faculties and blindly accept deeply flawed science.
"However, later in the thread you start to see some critical questioning of the studies by the doctors for the first time, and the last "case study" presented by a research academic poster of his own history of cognitive dysfunction on statins appeared to have an impact on them. He made his case well."
I have been able to turn up a huge number of essays, analyses and research studies... all critical of statin therapy, and the medical hegemony are plainly just not listening. I would say that the minimum requirement now is to globally suspend all statin medication prescriptions, while the whole issue is revisited by those without a vested interest in the outcome.
"You are right that the temptation to shill for the drug companies is intense".
You can sing that one from the rooftops. the drug companies know what they want to achieve. My previous links show that they are considering the state of the world market in 2015. They are clearly looking for lucrative new markets... which to my mind makes them the very last authority on earth that I would trust to tell me about the intrinsic value of the crap that they are pushing on humanity. Elsewhere there are death penalties for drug pushers. Just because the harmful drugs on sale are purported to be for a medicinal purpose does not excuse the act of pushing dangerous drugs... does it?
Kind regards,
xrn
- xrn
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:19 am
- Location: Bedfordshire UK
by Biologist » Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:16 pm
Well, here's a good applicable study they must have missed somehow -- from late 2003. The few Non-Pharma Studies just seem to fall through the cracks somehow!
I believe the reason I was placed on Zocor in the first place years ago had as much to do with my high triglycerides as anything else, and it is the triglycerides that actually need to be watched -- based on the Non-Cholesteral Theory of heart health. (BTW, What's the deal on garlic? Is that a good idea?)
So, just call me Mr. Cinnamon Man after reading this NON-Pharma-Funded Study. But first, this is a good thread to read and particularly this exact post which provide a "case study" for results:
http://www.spacedoc.net/board/viewtopic.php?p=2843#2843
Here's the cited URL:
[http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=150324]
And here's it's text:
USDA STUDY
Title: Cinnamon Improves Glucose and Lipids of People with Type 2 Diabetes
Authors
Khan, Alam - PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN
Safdar, Mahpara - " "
Muzaffar, Mohammad - " "
Khan, Ali - " "
Khattak, Khan - " "
Anderson, Richard
Submitted to: Diabetes Care
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: August 22, 2003
Publication Date: December 1, 2003
Citation: Khan, A., Safdar, M., Muzaffar, M., Khan, A., Khattak, K., Anderson, R.A. 2004. Cinnamon improves glucose and lipids of people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 26:3215-3218 (2003)
Interpretive Summary: Type 2 diabetes affects more than 20 million people in the US with millions more worldwide and the incidence is expected to double in the next two decades. The causes of diabetes are not entirely clear but diet certainly plays an important role. We have shown previously that products in cinnamon improve insulin activity in vitro. In this study we determined the effects of cinnamon on the blood sugar and fats of people with type 2 diabetes. Glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol (the bad form of cholesterol) were all improved by eating 1, 3 or 6 grams of cinnamon per day for 40 days. Improvements were better after 40 than 20 days and all three levels of cinnamon showed similar effects. This study demonstrates that cinnamon improves the blood sugar and fats of people with type 2 diabetes and is likely to also be of benefit to people with elevated levels of blood sugar and fats.
Technical Abstract: We have shown previously that water soluble complexes from cinnamon enhance insulin function in vitro. Since insulin affects glucose and lipid metabolism, the objective of this study was to determine if cinnamon improves blood glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Sixty people with type 2 DM, males and females, age 48 ± 6.5 years were divided into 6 groups. Groups 1, 2 and 3 consumed 1, 3 or 6 g of cinnamon/day respectively and groups 4, 5 and 6 were given placebo capsules corresponding to the number of capsules consumed for the three levels of cinnamon. The cinnamon was consumed for 40 days followed by a 20 day washout period. All three levels of cinnamon reduced the mean fasting serum glucose, triglycerides, LDL and total cholesterol levels with no changes in the placebo groups. Decreases in serum glucose ranged from 18 to 29%; triglycerides, 23 to 30%, and total cholesterol 12 to 26 % after 40 days of consuming cinnamon. Changes in HDL cholesterol were inconsistent. These results demonstrate that intake of 1, 3 or 6 grams of cinnamon per day reduces serum glucose, triglycerides, LDL and total cholesterol in people with type 2 DM. These data strongly suggest that the inclusion of cinnamon to the diet of people with type 2 DM will reduce risk factors associated with diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
I believe the reason I was placed on Zocor in the first place years ago had as much to do with my high triglycerides as anything else, and it is the triglycerides that actually need to be watched -- based on the Non-Cholesteral Theory of heart health. (BTW, What's the deal on garlic? Is that a good idea?)
So, just call me Mr. Cinnamon Man after reading this NON-Pharma-Funded Study. But first, this is a good thread to read and particularly this exact post which provide a "case study" for results:
http://www.spacedoc.net/board/viewtopic.php?p=2843#2843
Here's the cited URL:
[http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=150324]
And here's it's text:
USDA STUDY
Title: Cinnamon Improves Glucose and Lipids of People with Type 2 Diabetes
Authors
Khan, Alam - PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN
Safdar, Mahpara - " "
Muzaffar, Mohammad - " "
Khan, Ali - " "
Khattak, Khan - " "
Anderson, Richard
Submitted to: Diabetes Care
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: August 22, 2003
Publication Date: December 1, 2003
Citation: Khan, A., Safdar, M., Muzaffar, M., Khan, A., Khattak, K., Anderson, R.A. 2004. Cinnamon improves glucose and lipids of people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 26:3215-3218 (2003)
Interpretive Summary: Type 2 diabetes affects more than 20 million people in the US with millions more worldwide and the incidence is expected to double in the next two decades. The causes of diabetes are not entirely clear but diet certainly plays an important role. We have shown previously that products in cinnamon improve insulin activity in vitro. In this study we determined the effects of cinnamon on the blood sugar and fats of people with type 2 diabetes. Glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol (the bad form of cholesterol) were all improved by eating 1, 3 or 6 grams of cinnamon per day for 40 days. Improvements were better after 40 than 20 days and all three levels of cinnamon showed similar effects. This study demonstrates that cinnamon improves the blood sugar and fats of people with type 2 diabetes and is likely to also be of benefit to people with elevated levels of blood sugar and fats.
Technical Abstract: We have shown previously that water soluble complexes from cinnamon enhance insulin function in vitro. Since insulin affects glucose and lipid metabolism, the objective of this study was to determine if cinnamon improves blood glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Sixty people with type 2 DM, males and females, age 48 ± 6.5 years were divided into 6 groups. Groups 1, 2 and 3 consumed 1, 3 or 6 g of cinnamon/day respectively and groups 4, 5 and 6 were given placebo capsules corresponding to the number of capsules consumed for the three levels of cinnamon. The cinnamon was consumed for 40 days followed by a 20 day washout period. All three levels of cinnamon reduced the mean fasting serum glucose, triglycerides, LDL and total cholesterol levels with no changes in the placebo groups. Decreases in serum glucose ranged from 18 to 29%; triglycerides, 23 to 30%, and total cholesterol 12 to 26 % after 40 days of consuming cinnamon. Changes in HDL cholesterol were inconsistent. These results demonstrate that intake of 1, 3 or 6 grams of cinnamon per day reduces serum glucose, triglycerides, LDL and total cholesterol in people with type 2 DM. These data strongly suggest that the inclusion of cinnamon to the diet of people with type 2 DM will reduce risk factors associated with diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
- Biologist
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm
by Biologist » Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:29 pm
I should have emphasized the following line from the study:
"This study demonstrates that cinnamon
improves the blood sugar and fats of people
with type 2 diabetes and is likely to also be
of benefit to people with elevated levels of
blood sugar and fats."
You do not have to have diabetes for this to be applicable info. I don't.
Biologist
"This study demonstrates that cinnamon
improves the blood sugar and fats of people
with type 2 diabetes and is likely to also be
of benefit to people with elevated levels of
blood sugar and fats."
You do not have to have diabetes for this to be applicable info. I don't.
Biologist
- Biologist
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm
by Biologist » Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:52 pm
Fran,
I read that article by Malcolm Kendrick. It was real good. I think he is right. I also read quite a few of his other articles. He is a very good writer.
At the end of that article, he had a riddle. Just curious, do you know the answer to it?
"To quote a riddle that my son came home with the other day:
What is greater than God
More evil than the devil
The poor have it
The rich need it
If you eat it you will die
Once you know the answer you cannot believe that you couldn’t see it straightaway."
Biologist
I read that article by Malcolm Kendrick. It was real good. I think he is right. I also read quite a few of his other articles. He is a very good writer.
At the end of that article, he had a riddle. Just curious, do you know the answer to it?
"To quote a riddle that my son came home with the other day:
What is greater than God
More evil than the devil
The poor have it
The rich need it
If you eat it you will die
Once you know the answer you cannot believe that you couldn’t see it straightaway."
Biologist
- Biologist
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm
Reply for Biologist
by sos_group_owner » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:32 pm
Hi Biologist,
Go to this link for the answer:
:arrow: [http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/n/nothing-harvey.htm]
Fran
Go to this link for the answer:
:arrow: [http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/n/nothing-harvey.htm]
Fran
- sos_group_owner
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:03 pm
- Location: Connecticut
19 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Statins and other Cholesterol Reducing Drugs
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 183 guests