2 people on statins saved

[pops]

I posted my problem with statins previously. Please see "position paper." Since that time I have helped two people who were experiencing side effects from these drugs.

One the two people was my sister. She has been on simvastatin for a year and a quarter. She started having symptoms after 3 months. She felt like she had a virus. She went to her doctor, and he told her she did have a virus, and she believed him.

When I found out about it, after researching side effects on the 'net, I told my sister I thought her alleged virus was probably a reaction to simvastatin. Subsequently she started taking 1/2 the dose she had been taking (5 mg instead of 10 mg) after verifying it was okay to do so with her doctor. The symptoms of a virus that she'd had for a year went away after 5 days of lowering her dose.

Today I went to my place of employment, and discovered that one of my friend's girlfriends is on lovastatin, as I had been. She's about 20 years old. Her doctor put her on it because she has a family history of heart disease. She is having all the symptoms I had from lovastatin: pain in her joints and muscles and some kind of heart problem. In her case the heart problem is palpitations. In my case I had a strange feeling in my chest along with an increased pulse rate and an episode of almost passing out when I was working hard.

Anyway, I convinced my friend's girlfriend to research statins on the 'net. Her doctor told her that her symptoms would resolve if she gave blood, which she did today, but that didn't help her.

I would very much like to provide my personal opinion about statins, but I'm reminded of Dragnet, where Jack Web, fictional FBI agent, always told his witnesses, "Just the facts, ma'am." I'm not a ma'am, I'm a mister, but I will withhold opinions on statins and just provide facts as accurately as I know them.

I believe it's Matthew 8:32 that says, "And ye shall seek the truth and the truth shall set you free." In fact, our government was so impressed with that passage that they have it on the wall of CIA headquarters in Langley Virginia. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. I will keep seeking the truth about statins, and I advise everyone to do the same. Follow your doctor's advice, but don't follow blindly.

God bless.

pops

[Cat Mom2]

I can't tell you how just telling our stories have helped MANY people. I think my biggest save was the man who had a episode of TGA that scared his pants off of him. After all the tests were done, they could find no reason for his TGA. In telling him my own story, I saw many light bulb moments go off on his face so that TGA was not the only side effect he had on them.... and before that, he was so convienced he had no problems at all on the stuff because it was doing what it was suppose to do and that was to lower his cholesterol!

The swing towards attitudes changing has started and more and more are refusing to take them.. Noticed the "new" stuff coming out on the market to lower cholesterol? There will be more newer drugs and probably just as dangerous as statins.

[pops]

I don't know if new drugs will be as dangerous as statins.

I have a theory, based on evidence I have accrued, that lowering cholesterol to an extent, and consequently lowering C-Reactive protein, is a good thing for the prevention of heart disease. But only to an extent.

My theory is that an LDL of 125 or so should be the goal. Anything lower than that creates problems.

Consider this: the oligodendrocytes continuously rebuild the myelin sheath, which is the coating for nerve cells. Oligos use lipids to do their job. If we lower lipids too far, it would make sense that the myelin sheath would experience failure in the same sense as taking non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) blocks prostaglandlin, which is used to rebuild the stomach lining, causing failure in that system if these drugs are taken in too great an amount for too long.

With statins, if the cholesterol levels are driven too low, the myelin could theoretically fail to be rebuilt because of a deficiency of lipids and people would develop multiple sclerosis like symptoms, since multiple sclerosis involves a failure of the myelin sheath (in the case of MS it's presumed that T-cells attack the myelin, but let's not go into that here).

By the way, ALS is also a failure of the myelin sheath.

The bottom line is that too low a cholesterol level might be a bad thing, which might explain why the people I've known who were on statins with no side effects were people whose cholesterol was originally very high, while people who started out with near normal cholesterol almost always had side effects.

I'm guessing, of course, that in those folks who started with very high cholesterol, statins lowered their levels to the normal range, which their body and oligodendrocytes tolerated well. But if someone's cholesterol is initially close to normal or even low, then taking a statin and/or other cholesterol lowering medication might put that person in the danger zone.

In other words, in my opinion, cholesterol should be between range A and range B, and not lower. Range A - and I'm guessing based on studies I've read - should be an LDL of 125. This will need to be proven in double blind studies, obviously.

Put it another way: you can be too thin, too rich, and have too low of a cholesterol.

Okay, maybe not too rich. But I digress ...

Anyway, these are theories. Someone with big money and power has to bear them out, or prove them wrong. And I hope they do, either way.

Have a nice day if you want to.

pops

[David Staup]

POPS

read the following carefully:

In the study and practice of the sciences it is quite different; the false judgments we form neither affect our existence nor our welfare; and we are not forced by any physical necessity to correct them. Imagination, on the contrary, which is ever wandering beyond the bounds of truth, joined to self-love and that self-confidence we are so apt to indulge, prompt us to draw conclusions which are not immediately derived from facts; so that we become in some measure interested in deceiving ourselves. Hence it is by no means to be wondered, that, in the science of physics in general, men have often made suppositions, instead of forming conclusions. These suppositions, handed down from one age to another, acquire additional weight from the authorities by which they are supported, till at last they are received, even by men of genius, as fundamental truths.

The only method of preventing such errors from taking place, and of correcting them when formed, is to restrain and simplify our reasoning as much as possible. This depends entirely upon ourselves, and the neglect of it is the only source of our mistakes. We must trust to nothing but facts: These are presented to us by Nature, and cannot deceive. We ought, in every instance, to submit our reasoning to the test of experiment, and never to search for truth but by the natural road of experiment and observation. Thus mathematicians obtain the solution of a problem by the mere arrangement of data, and by reducing their reasoning to such simple steps, to conclusions so very obvious, as never to lose sight of the evidence which guides them


now consider the FACTS that nature provides (not the assumptions made by yourself or anyone else)

"http://www.spacedoc.net/great_cholesterol_con

"http://www.spacedoc.net/kilmer_mccully_cholesterol_2

and

"http://www.spacedoc.net/cheerios_fda


note specifically the excerpt from the above (last link)

"In the 1990 Quebec Cardiovascular Study on 4576 men aged 35-64 years to start, serum total cholesterol levels were not associated with either cardiovascular disease or all-cause mortality.

Even in dialysis patients, all-cause mortality was highest at the lowest total cholesterol levels, being 30% lower when total cholesterol was approximately 240 mg/dL compared with TC <160. Also, mortality was 17% lower at low-density-lipoprotein (LDL-C) approximately 190 mg/dL compared with LDL-C <130 in a 2004 study.

Among the elderly the effects of low serum total cholesterol and low LDL-C were found to be deadly. In a study on residents of northern Manhattan, NY, 2,277 subjects were followed for 10 years with results reported in 2005. Two-thirds were female and 1/3 of the total were Hispanic, African American and white. Subjects were 65-98 years old at baseline, mean age 76. The chance of dying was twice as great in the lowest quartile of total cholesterol or LDL-C levels, while HDL-C and triglyceride levels were not related to all-cause mortality in this age group.

Women had higher baseline total cholesterol and LDL-C levels (206 and 124) than men (191 and 117), yet the women lived longer. Men with the same total cholesterol and LDL-C levels as women lived as long. Of the subjects, 1/5 were taking statin drugs to lower total cholesterol and LDL-C, which would have pushed them into the lowest quartile.

This is an excellent confirmation that high total cholesterol and LDL-C ( low density lipoprotein cholesterol ) levels are beneficial, certainly in the elderly who are most likely to be prescribed a statin drug. The emphasis on the value of lowering LDL-C, rather than lowering total cholesterol, taken by Big Pharma in the last few years, is invalidated by this study. LDL-C is not bad cholesterol; it is an essential form!

Dr. Bernard Forette and a team of French researchers from Paris reported in 1989 that women of mean age 82 with high cholesterol and followed for 5 years lived the longest. When the data of Forette are graphed, the age-adjusted data show a minimal risk of dying out to total cholesterol = 320 mg/dL for elderly women. The minimum death rate occurred with a total cholesterol level of 272 mg/dL, far higher than the current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) recommendations of approximately 200 mg/dL for everyone.

The death rate was 5.2 times higher for women who had very low cholesterol, specifically, 155 mg/dL.　 The death rate was 1.8 times higher for women who had very high cholesterol, specifically, 348 mg/dL, and also 1.8 times higher at 200 mg/dL.

What possible basis could there be for the NCEP recommendations for <200? In their report, the French doctors warned against lowering cholesterol in elderly women.

Serum total cholesterol rises naturally with age from a mean level of 178 mg/dL in 18-24 year-olds to a maximum mean level of 230 mg/dL in 55-64 year-olds. Men over 55 and women of all ages who have the highest cholesterol levels live the longest, since high total cholesterol protects against cardiovascular disease (CVD) and infections (Ravnskov U. High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis. Quarterly Journal of Medicine, 2003;96:927-934).

For people of a narrow age range, even in a 13-year span, say ages 50-62 years, a graph of total cholesterol levels of men who did and did not have CVD has been published in 2001.

There is so much overlap between the men with or without CVD that there is no likelihood that the slightly greater chance for CVD at the higher total cholesterol levels could be used for prediction in any one individual, even in this group spanning 13 years in age.

This is the reason that drug advertising claims that higher total cholesterol means quicker death from CVD are false - in large groups of people of mixed ages, the older ones will have higher total cholesterol and LDL-C, and older people die sooner than younger ones, not necessarily from CVD. "


David

[pops]

David:

I've actually read these studies. They conflict in a huge way with studies coming from mainstream medicine.

I am not a scientist. I don't know the answers. I take in data and try to figure out what's true.

So far I don't believe I have found out what's true.

There are a multitude of studies done by the so called medical experts which they claim indicates that reduced cholesterol, especially LDL, triglycerides and total cholesterol, predicts a lower risk of atherosclerosis.

The theory, as I read it, at this time is that LDL becomes oxidized and clogs the coronary arteries, where a clot then forms, blocking the artery, which causes coronary thrombosis, which is another term for heart attack.

If high cholesterol increases longevity, does it also reduce the risk of coronary thrombosis? Or are those factors mutually exclusive? IE: does the reduction of the risk of coronary thrombosis through the lowering of total cholesterol, LDL and triglycerides simultaneously increase the risk of dying from other diseases such as cancer, neurological disorders and so on?

And if the latter is true - that lowering cholesterol reduces risk of heart disease but increases risk of dying from other disorders, what is the net gain/loss from taking drugs that lower cholesterol?

Apologies, but I have more questions.

Since exercise and a low fat/high fiber diet also tend to lower total cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides, as well as raise HDL, are you saying that regular exercise and a low fat diet high in fruits and vegetables and whole grains and nuts and seeds, (which allegedly tends to lower these lipid factors and raise HDL) is actually bad for you and causes an increase in death rate among the elderly?

I will check back here for an answer. I'm interested in your reply. Thank you.

pops

[pops]

I do hate being wrong.

I found this on pubmed, which is government, which means it has to be true, right?

Anyway, they appear to agree with your assessment.

Here it is.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3560398