exercise intolerance

[cjbrooksjc]

Biologist: Thanks for getting involved w/ this post. I felt Bibbz needed some 'bucking up' if nothing else. A body can feel really isolated under these conditions if they have no positive or informative input other than their Dr. As for my advice: I don't always hit the bullseye, but my Kentucky windage is pretty reliable, and I wanted to give bibbz the feeling that there was a supporting voice somewhere out here in the void, or the net-r-werld as my son-in-law calls it. Don't you wonder how many people, not computer savvy, are suffering thru this daily agony without an impartial sounding board? Boy, it makes me sore!

Bring back the stocks and pillories, bring back the dunking stool, the thumb scews, and the rack, and really nasty, disppointing letters home to their (Pharma) moms!!

Regards,

Brooks

[Brian C.]

Hi bibbz.

The earliest record I have for cholesterol level shows 10.5mmol/litre. The most recent ,which was immediately prior to stopping the Lipitor, was 4.6 mmol/litre. My next fasting lipid profile will be tested next Tuesday.
I'm currently on 500mg prescription Niaspan and 9g cholestyramine resin (Questran) per diem.

From what I understand, as we get older our cholesterol levels rise and for people over 60 those with the higher level tend to live longer.

Brian.

[xrn]

Hi bibbz,
if you feel the need to chat, you can send me your phone number by e-mail and I will call you back.

e-mail me at xrn(at)talkingstatins(dot)com

(remove the words between the brackets, and the brackets, and insert the usual symbols so that the whole address has no spaces)

Kind regards,
xrn

[xrn]

Brian:
I'm hoping to pass a "Layperson's Guide to the Science" to xrn soon for possible inclusion on his new site.
There, I've gone public so I will have to pull my finger out now

Brian.

Hmmm...

Kind regards,
xrn (aka the all-seeing)

Seriously, thanks Brian. I will take all the help I can get. I like the sound of a layperson's guide to science. It should help people to recognise rubbish science when they see it.

I was looking at a document by Dr Eades and there was a wonderfully faded clipping from a newspaper reporting on the Framingham Heart Study in 1970. The director of the study was 'clarifying' the findings for the local press. It is so outrageous a quote, that I will quote it in full.

"Although there is no discernible relationship between reported diet intake and serum cholesterol levels in the Framingham Diet study group, it is incorrect to interpret this finding to mean that diet has no connection with blood cholesterol"

Dr William B Kannel, director of the Framingham heart study has stated.

It was a fascinating read and I am awaiting permission to put the heavily image processed clipping onto my website and run the text underneath it. The web image was just a yellowed clipping that need some image processing to get it to a bigger size and to be, sort of, legible, but after a few hours work I was able to read it and it is rather revealing.

After about 22 years of study and "no discernible relationship" Dr Kannel insisted that high cholesterol diet and heart disease were linked. What a fool he made himself appear. Gems such as this...

"The available evidence indicates that coronary heart disease appears to result from a combination of contributing factors and that no single factor capable of producing the disease by itself has been convincingly demonstrated", he stated.

"However", he added, "if any common denominator does exist through which such multiple, inter-related factors operate to produce athersclerotic leasions, then some aberration of blood lipids is certainly the chief contender. It appears to be the thread running through the web of circumstances leading to coronary heart disease."

I would hope that your guide will be able to steer people away from such nonsenical conclusions.

Kind regards,
xrn (I will take any free guides in exchange for food... is there a McDonalds near your home?)

[Brian C.]

xrn: ...is there a McDonalds near your home? ;)

Not within 10 miles :D

Brian.

[Biologist]

Brooks,

Actually, I thought your posts were very well done.

Biologist

[cjbrooksjc]

Bibbz: Still plugged in to this site? If you are, I forgot to mention one PRIMARY cholesterol reduction supplement: Vitamin 'C'.

Below is an excerpt from one of the sites I peruse:

***********************************************************

A safe, natural regimen instead of Lipitor and other statins

What is most horrifying about this problem is that cholesterol balance can be achieved without drugs, simply and safely by taking 3000-6000 milligrams of vitamin C per day, 1000-2000 mg per meal, for an adult, or about 500 mg per meal for a 50-lb. child, with sufficient water intake, 2 quarts per day for an adult, 1 quart per day for a 50-lb. child. Unfortunately, vitamin C was misclassified as a micronutrient in the 1930s and 1940s, rather than an essential nutrient involved in dozens of body processes, including continual repair of our arteries. Our health authorities recommend that we take only 60 milligrams per day, barely enough to prevent scurvy. The pharmaceutical industry has used scare tactics to frighten people not to take vitamin C in the quantities necessary for health or to give it to their children.

By the time we reach age 20 we have accumulated enough plaques to be seen on an MRI or Ultrafast CT scan: we have the beginnings of cardiovascular disease. When most people reach middle age they have enough coronary artery blockage to be classified as cardiovascular disease. The doctor prescribes Lipitor, thinking it will help, but instead it may cause muscle degeneration in the heart and elsewhere and actually increase coronary artery plaques.

If you do not suffer from statin-induced damage but you would like to stop taking these potentially dangerous drugs, or you have elevated cholesterol levels or have heart disease, you can click here to read the article on the root causes of heart disease, or click here to order the Natural Therapy for Cardiovascular Disease.

Recovery from Lipitor-induced damage

Considering the wide range of cellular degeneration that could result from use of Lipitor and other statins, it is impossible to know which organ system should be the initial focus of recovery. The very first thing that people can do is to begin taking large doses of vitamin C to maintain cholesterol balance, and to stop taking Lipitor or other statin drugs. The so-called "side effects" are simply too dangerous and numerous to contemplate continuing taking them.

Jonathan Campbell, the author of this article, has developed multi-faceted regimen to address the cellular damage that could be caused by statin drugs and has written a manual called Natural Strategies for Recovery from Lipitor and Other Statin drugs.

The site is found at the following url:

*http://www.cqs.com/lipitor.htm

Remove the * before you cut and paste it into your browser


Hope this helps.

Regards,

Brooks

[bibbz]

Hi Brooks
Yes I take 2000 vit C a day but I am now going to up the dose. I had bloods done to-day (not taken statins for a week)So if I up the dose I should get a much better reading in about 6 weeks. By the way have you ever looked up the benefit of drinking water? take a look and I think you may be quite surprised.
Found this article written in the daily Telegraph. I`ve copied and pasted it so I hope that is allowed, Could you post it where it will do the most good I will let Jeff know about it. Thanks for the info Brooks and please keep it coming I`ve been off statins for a week now and it feels so good to be alive. Will never touch them again.
Many many thanks Brooks
Lavinia aka Bibby



If you want to feel younger, forget your statins

By James Le Fanu, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:25am BST 03/04/2007

A doctor accused of wittingly prescribing useless or possibly lethal drugs would vehemently - and understandably - deny it. This makes it rather difficult to oppose the prevailing medical consensus on statins - the cholesterol-lowering drugs prescribed to four million people in Britain at a cost of £1 billion a year.

That's quite a sum. It could pay the salaries of 700,000 nurses or build two spanking new teaching hospitals.

An even bigger sum is £15 billion. That is the profit the pharmaceutical industry made last year from this, the most profitable class of drugs ever invented. They are so profitable that the latest statins to reach the market came with a £600 million promotion budget, to "promote" the notion to family doctors and policymakers that the lower the cholesterol the better, and that at least half the population would benefit from the drugs.
advertisement

But it is not so. Statins are useless for 95 per cent of those taking them, while exposing all to the hazard of serious side-effects. Hence my ever-growing file of letters from those who regrettably have had to find this out for themselves, illustrated by this all-too-typical tale from Roger Andrews of Hertfordshire, first prescribed statins after an operation for an aortic aneurism (that he had cleverly diagnosed himself).

Over the past few years Mr Andrews had become increasingly decrepit -what can one expect at 74? - with pain and stiffness in the legs and burning sensations in the hands so bad that when flying to his son's wedding in Hawaii he needed walking sticks and a wheelchair at the transfer stops. However, he forgot to pack his statins, and felt so much better after his three-week holiday that when he got home he decided to continue the inadvertent "experiment" of not taking them. Since October most if not all of his crippling side-effects have gone. Several friends can tell a similar story, and they have friends too\u2026

The take-home message is that statins are only of value in those with a strong family history of heart disease or men with a history of heart attacks. For everyone else they are best avoided as they seriously interfere with the functioning of the nerve cells, affecting mental function, and muscles.

This is all wittily explained in a recent book by a Cheshire family doctor, Malcolm Kendrick, The Great Cholesterol Con (John Blake Publishing, £9.99). There are, I suspect, many out there, like Mr Andrews, wrongly attributing their decrepitude to Anno Domini, when the real culprits are statins. I would be more than interested to hear from anyone who finds that "giving them a rest" effects a similarly miraculous transformation.

James.LeFanu@telegraph.co.uk

[Brian C.]

For the benefit of non-UK readers the writer of that article is no mere hack journalist but a doctor!

More power to his pen.

Brian.

[bibbz]

Nice one Brian,
I didnt know that he was a Doc, He`s Asking for recovering statinees to e-mail him. Not quite sure what he intends to do with the info, but I imagine all will be revealed, and, judging by the article it can only be in favor of the cause.

Thanks Brian

Lavinia aka bibby

[cjbrooksjc]

Lavinia: Yes, I am aware of the water recommendation. I found that one of the jobs of our Mitochondria is to regulate water content in the cell; so, if they (M) are broken (as they seem to be in my case) water retention isn't maintained (I'm dry as an old stick) they (M) also produce urea; so, that may be why so many of us spend a lot of time in the bathroom day and night. Still, water is certainly our friend! I go thru about three to four litres a day and about 1/2 to 3/4 Ltr during the night.

Secondly, I sent a rather lengthy Email to your Dr./Journalist, Mr. LeFanu, and invited him to join our happy(?) family. Thanks for including that editorial in your post. And, I think, since we all get email notices when any new items are posted, that this is as good a place as any for this very interesting piece.
Best Regards,

Brooks

[Ray Holder]

Bibbz, Lavinia,

I feel sure that Dr Malcolm Kendrick is also a cardiologist, from an article of his which I read a year or so ago.

Ray

[Brian C.]

He's MbChB & MRCGP and has "worked with the European Society of Cardiology" according to this Daily Mail article :

*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=430682&in_page_id=1774&in_page_id=1774&expand=true

Brian.

[xrn]

Batchelor of Medicine, Master of Surgery (basic medical degree in the UK) and Member of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

The membership examinations should be taken within 3 years of the application to sit the examinations being accepted. A candidate has 3 attempts at each of the modules.

Candidates are not eligible for membership unless they have undergone the required vocational training that fits them for independent practice. Broadly speaking, to have completed sufficient training at a sufficientlly senior level, after first qualification, one could reasonably expect the medic to be about 28~30 years old.

Add another 3 years for MRCGP and their status will be quivalent to that of a junior hospital consultant. That is they will be permitted to practice independently but will need a few years under their belt before being considered to be 'wise'.

Kind regards,
xrn