Thread: The Cholesterol Myth - Agree?

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by terry57

Originally Posted by longway

It's largely a ecam.

If my mum had been tested for Chol chances are she may be alive today.

You confuse the issue where people with inherited chol problems are put in the same boat as lazy fat bastards who cause their own issues.

Just sayin like.

I did say largely, not totally. Cholesterol levels are a poor predictor of coronary health, and statin's efficacy comes not from lowering cholesterol but it's effect on the mevalonate pathway, the cholesterol lowering is a side effect of that, it also has other unpleasant side effects and that's why you should supplement with coenzyme q 10 if you are on statins.

What's statins do in a round about way is reduce levels on chronic inflammation in the body and that is how they help protect against heart didease what they also don't tell you is that overall mortality remains about the same ie when you are on statins your likelihood from dying from other causes increases.

Is that documented?

Yes is a book by a guy called Anthony colpo that goes into it in great detail. BTW it's the triglyceride levels that are a far better predictor of coronary disease. These are usually elevated by sugar and processed food.

I look at it this way.

Shall I put my faith in people who devote their life to Medicine and research or shall I put my faith in people who are not and have not. ?

It's like Comparing a Jehovah Witness who thinks blood transfusions are against Gods will to a person who has been Educated over many years and actually knows what he or she is talking about.

I'll stay with the real Doctors thanks very much whilst the unbelievers can go to their witch Doctors.

I'm quite Happy being on Statins.

^ it's fair enough, but I have enough bad experiences to realise that you have to do your own research. A tiny example - my dad was complaining of constant fatigue. He was telling me about the long list of medicines he was prescribed. I started Goodling and within 15 minutes found out he was on 2 types of blood pressure medication both working in different ways. I asked him to check to see if this was ok. He went to another doctor who immediately took him off one of the BP mess. Other ones were also removed. I have got his statin dose reduced to a quarter of the original, they had him on 2 types of statins too. On some days his skin was literally grey.

It takes dozens of hours of research before you can find out the real truth.

Hypocholesterolemia may be one of the few conditions that benefit from statins.

^

You may put in many hours of research on the Internet but Medical professionals put in many years of intense study at University and devote their life to the profession.

In fact only the best graduate.

That said, you are correct. If one is not happy with what has been prescribed by their Doctor then go get a second opinion.

To rely on an Internet diagnosis is certainly not the way to go.

I am not diagnosing anything. All is done with full knowledge of the docs. You can rationale all you like, but the mainstream treatment and advice for prevention for coronary heart disease is harms more than heals.

^

Are you a Medical Doctor or are you some one who reads long sentences on the Internet. ?

I mean you seem very certain that Medical professionals have no idea what they are on about .

Erm, I'll keep seeing my Doctor thanks.

^ it makes no odds to me what you do. I never told you to not continue with your doc, so I don't know why you keep telling me.

^

Exactly right,

But people who have inherited cholesterol or type 1 diabetes must take medication if they do not want to die prematurely.

This stuff ain't to hard to work out.

Cholesterol has been hashed and rehashed many times since the statin drugs came out. Being a pharmacist for over 34 years, I have heard both sides and there does not seem to be concrete evidence either way. Yes, there have studies that show high cholesterol contibutes to heart disease but if you dig into them, you will see that many of the drug companies that make statins are behind the studies. A case of making numbers and outcomes fit the desired results.

Statins have many side effects, and if you have not experienced any Terry, consider yourself lucky. Physicians know very little about pharmaceuticals and usually listen to the drug reps that bring all their tainted studies along with them. Give a physician a handful of biased studies and he just takes the word of the drug reps. They never really read the studies. It was my job as Director of Pharmacy to counter detail the physicians when they wanted every new drug on the market available in the hospital for their patients. I could usually find two studies that disputed the drug reps claims for every one the physicians gave me.

My personal take on the statins and cholesterol is this. There are studies that show very high cholesterol levels CONTRIBUTE to, not cause heart disease. There are also studies that show cholesterol levels vary from one person to the next and many live long lives with what the physicians call high cholesterol. The statins have some pretty severe and common side effects, so everyone needs to make the decision whether not to use statins, or use them and risk the side effects.

One final note. Statins are not cheap in the western world. Given the choice of buying groceries or buying statins, I would probably choose the groceries. Terry may be finding them cheaper here in Thailand, but they are probably not as bioavailable as those purchased in Australia. All food for thought.

Originally Posted by longway

..the issue with that as far as I remember is that the small dense ldl molecules are supposed get stuck in the endothelial lining, when they get stuck it's their outer membrane of fat that gets oxidised and sticks and eventually causes plaques. This is why 'cholesterol' has no effect in veins, cholesterol in itself is harmless.

Yes and as I mentioned there are small ldl and big ldl. The big ldl are relatively harmless. But your standard blood test doesn't differentiate between the two types of ldl hence you don't know what percentage of that ldl reading is the good component or which is the bad component. Hence virtually useless and nothing to get worked up about. A high ldl reading could actually consist of a big ldl percentage of 75% but you would never know it. Big pharm likes it that way.

In reality, is is still worth having an annual medical check?

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

In reality, is is still worth having an annual medical check?

Certainly yes. Or at least biannual if there are no issues to watch. If for nothing else then to catch a few things like diabetes, liver or kidney problems early.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Cholesterol and its presumed link to cardiac and circulatory problems is pretty much in the same league as climate change caused by artificial production of CO2. Both phenomena attract believers seemingly convinced by nothing more than a religious zealotry supplanting real science.

Oh so now not only is the entire scientific community wrong but so is the entire medical field. You are one prolific blowhard. Please since you seam to know it all why do you not present your evidence on both issues. Citations are in order.

If you cant than stick to sausages and the sky train.

Editor In Chief Of World?s Best
Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False | Collective-Evolution

Upto half of all medical research is bogus according to a former editor in chief of lancet.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

One final note. Statins are not cheap in the western world. Given the choice of buying groceries or buying statins, I would probably choose the groceries.

Terry may be finding them cheaper here in Thailand, but they are probably not as bioavailable as those purchased in Australia. .

Urm Ok Rick. Let's have a look at that.

In my case where my Body is a cholesterol making machine I'll take the Statins over the groceries thanks very much. Lucky I can afford both.

Secondly, I'm on the big boys 80 MG. Can not buy them in Thailand. 40 MG are the Max.

I go back to Perth every six months and get six months supply.

In Australia the Government subsidizes the Statins, I get them cheap, in Thailand of course they do not.

I have priced the 40 MG statins, cheapest available is 900 Baht for 30 tabs.

Many places want 1500 Baht.

As far as side affects go, I do not notice any but what ever side effects may arise it's surely better than dying from a massive stroke.

I continue to place my faith in Modern medicine.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

In reality, is is still worth having an annual medical check?

If one has inherited Cholesterol 6 month blood checks are the Norm.

Jesus, only a tool would not keep on top of things when confronted with real issues.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

would recommend having some levels drawn about 6 months after stopping the statins to see how you are doing. As you have stated, diet is key.

I agree with that advice. Have a test half a year after stopping is important to know where you stand.

About diet and exercise is key, that seems to depend on the person. It may help some people. Others can diet to extremes avoiding cholesterol and never see any effect. Their bodies produce it in excess and dieting won't do any good. My wife is one of those. She tried dieting advice against cholesterol for a long time without any positive effect. She now is on statines.

My personal take is feeding my body massive amounts of cholesterol. It seems to make my body not to produce any. When I tell my doctor what I eat she shakes her head in disbelief. And my cholesterol values are perfect without statines. I am one of the lucky ones.

We have a series of tests done every two years.

Well, about two weeks ago I stopped taking my cholesterol medication and initially everything was fine, but the past few days I was feeling run down, no energy, with aching muscles etc. then a couple of nights ago I started to develop muscle spasms in my right arm and this morning I was having chest pains.

So I did a bit more googling and have discovered that once you go off the statins that quite a few people get chest pains which may take up to six months to go away.

I also read that once you stop taking the statins that your LDL levels rise dramatically and it increases your chances of heart attack accordingly.

I'm not happy. The pharmaceutical companies trick the doctors into prescribing these drugs which are not required and then once you are on them it appears that you can't come off them.

Has anyone here come off statins successfully? and how long did it take?

^ An update on the previous post.

I began to think that I had a fever, so I went out in search of papaya leaves, then I thought maybe I needed to eat so I went to a local restaurant. Got halfway through a panang moo but couldn't finish it, I was getting a bad stomach ache.

Got home and after some vomiting and bad stomach cramps have decided that I ate something bad a few days ago.

^ so, it's not the medicine but bad food in your opinion?

I hope you get better.

Also, I ordered the book, "The Cholesterol Myth" and it'll arrive at my door this Monday.