{Disarmed} New Cholesterol Controversies: Regaining Perspective

December 23, 2007

Too Wordy and confusing. Even at secondary prevention, absolute risk reduction was 2.1% with number needed to treat of 48 for 3 to 5 years just TO BENEFIT ONE PERSON.

What kind of benefit is that?

These doctors sure know how to confuse the issue IMO.

jlk

-

clare mcconville - harris

thecardiacclub ; STOPPED OUR STATINS GROUP

Cc:

Saturday, December 22, 2007 10:59 AM

{Disarmed} New Cholesterol Controversies: Regaining Perspective

can say I totally agree with this is all aspects BUT tiz pretty good all the same...........

MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "brodyhooked.blogspot.com" claiming to be http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com:80/2007/12/new-cholesterol-controversies-regaining.html

§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»Other like groups: MedicalConspiraciesSubscribe: MedicalConspiracies- Post message: MedicalConspiracies Any information here in is for educational purpose only; it may be news related, purely speculation or SOMEONE’S OPINION. Always consult with a qualified Medical Doctor before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.By becoming a member of this group you AGREE to hold this group its members, list owners, moderators and affiliates harmless of any liability for any direct, consequential, incidental, damage incurred.YOU AGREE; to accept responsibility and liability for your own actions and to contact a licensed Medical Doctor before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE; you must :

December 23, 2007

jlk et al...........

I believe where statin medications are concerned (firstly) and secondly - now - where other drugs used to 'lower' blood cholesterol levels are being 'touted' etc.... it is a case (sadly) of follow the dollar.... they are and have been a huge money maker for the 'industry' and sadly too, most GP's do not do research for themselves, but rely on what the reps and companies tell them....... I mean 'it must be correct', otherwise the government would not allow them to say it! right?

Even here 'Down Under' I have ongoing battles with medico's because I refuse statin drugs...... errrrr 'ok' the doc might say, 'so you had/have a bad reaction to statins ... well there are other newer types of cholesterol lowering medications you can take.' There is just NO getting thru to them that the human body makes what it needs in the way of cholesterol....... cholesterol is NOT the problemo........ if it were then all veins and arteries thru the entire human body would become (dare I say this?) clogged.... whereas it is proven that this does not happen..........

As I tried to say when I posted that article link (I see there were typo's in it arghhhhh..... my typo's I mean) that there were some things in that particular article that were valuable....... but it did not go far enuff......... come on now those drugs are doing a lot of harm to many many many folks.... particularly the ones who trust their doctors implicitly - as if they (the GP's) were 'demi gods'. I think it is time, for those who are concerned and interested, to begin seriously looking at what it is that is doing the damage (per se) to the arteries.... look at the plaques...... what do they actually consist of? how much is that waxy substance we know as 'cholesterol' and how much is made up of calcified odd bods!

This (as you may have gleaned) is a subject I am interested in and when I come across articles that (to me) make sense I tend to pass them along. I DO AGREE with you that the risk factor is FAR TOO GREAT..... how many people take how many pills for how many years to save how many (possibly save) lives? arghhhhhh YES statins do seem to have some minor benefits, but that may only be due to their anti inflamatory properties......... off my podium now (grin) but posting another article below for any who may be interested about what other's who are 'credentialed' might say about statins etc......

Cheer's from Clare in Tassie 'Down Under'.

The Truth About Statins

By Vadim Ivanov, M.D. andAleksandra Niedzwiecki, Ph.D.

June 14, 2006 -- The hypothesis that high cholesterol promotes the development of atherosclerotic plaques in human arteries was first proposed at the beginning of the 20th century. It has been tested numerous times, but never convincingly proven. All physicians know that about one-half of heart attack victims do not have high cholesterol levels.

They also agree that the cholesterol- based hypothesis of heart disease does not apply to women and the elderly. Since the 1990s and the publication of Dr. Matthias Rath’s discovery that the cause of heart disease is a long-term vitamin deficiency, research has increasingly confirmed this new concept, both through clinical studies and lab research.

The cholesterol hypothesis, however, has powerful supporters in the pharmaceutical industry, which exploits the hopes of millions of patients to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by the artificial lowering of their blood cholesterol levels.

Huge amounts of funds poured into scientific and clinical research, coupled with the manipulation of public opinion by lobbying and aggressive marketing of this “cholesterol dogma”, accelerated following the introduction of a new class of drugs called statins in the early 1990s.These drugs inhibit the activity of HMG-coenzyme A reductase, a key enzyme in the cellular biosynthesis of cholesterol molecules.

The introduction of these drugs has raised many concerns by physicians and researchers regarding the potential side effects of statin medications. It is a scientific fact that the inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase has other metabolic consequences, including the depletion of coenzyme Q10, a critical nutrient for cellular energy production, which results in muscle and liver damage. It can also affect the synthesis of hormones and vitamin D. Moreover, various research data indicated earlier that statins could cause cancer. Despite these warnings, new prescription guidelines lowering cholesterol levels requiring drug treatments were introduced in 2001, immediately making millions of people “cholesterol-sick” and requiring prescriptions.

Today, about 15 years after the first clinical application of statins, the health concerns regarding their use have become a reality. Serious side effects, including deaths from rhabdomyolysis, compelled desperate patients and their families to take legal action against the manufacturers of these drugs.

This did not stop the mulstatin treatment. The standard therapy with Lipitor did not change blood cholesterol levels after 12 months of treatment. Only by using an eight-fold higher dosage of the drug were the blood LDL cholesterol levels decreased by 16 percent and total cholesterol by nine percent. But this did not help halt development of calcified plaques in the heart arteries just the opposite. Patients who used intensive drug therapy and lowered their cholesterol levels had 27 percent higher progression of coronary calcifications in a year.

This clinical trial has confirmed what Dr. Rath discovered and our research has validated for more than a decade: that high cholesterol is a consequence of atherosclerosis. It is a biological “plaster cast” used to compensate for a structural weakness of the blood vessel wall caused by a long-term deficiency of vitamin C and other nutrients.

Therefore it is logical that the natural restoration of vascular function should occur through micronutrient supplementation not artificial lowering of cholesterol. Already in 1996, the clinical study authored by Drs. Rath and Niedzwiecki documented a natural reversal of coronary calcified deposits, without drugs and surgery. In addition, a specific vitamin program was effective in stopping the growth of calcified deposits after 12 months in patients at early stages of the disease.

More research has confirmed that by improving vascular wall structure with vitamin C, lysine and other nutrients, cholesterol blood levels can normalize without statins or other drugs. In this aspect, it has been known that vitamin C regulates the key enzyme in cholesterol synthesis in the body.

This is the same enzyme (HMG -CoA reductase) that is the target of statin drugs such as Lipitor, simvastatins and others. The natural solution to cholesterol has been known for decades, but not explored to benefit the patients.

Why then are the statins still being promoted?

more to read here: http://www.drrathresearch.org/health_news/061406_truthstatins.html

Too Wordy and confusing. Even at secondary prevention, absolute risk reduction was 2.1% with number needed to treat of 48 for 3 to 5 years just TO BENEFIT ONE PERSON. What kind of benefit is that?