Re: Statins

I know wot you mean it is soooo confusing but i am quoting from my own experiences.....maybe you wont get the probs i got but if you begin to get any probs see you doctor straight away ..there is a alternative called ezetrol (enzetimibe) it apparently cost more than statins hence why they are used.....good luck ...PS i am T2 diabetic ..had to optic strokes 2 cancer scares and i still kicking ...lol

Re: Statins

But one thing we know about people with diabetes is that they have low MAGNESIUM levels.

a strong inverse relationship between dietary magnesium intake and the risk of developing T2D

There is no evidence anyone suffers from enzetimibe deficiency.

If you understood how Magnesium works in comparison with Statin Medications you may consider it would be more sense to correct the underlying deficiency which gave rise to the problem than spend the rest of your life dealing with the consequences.

Magnesium and the risk of stroke

Most people now consume less than half the magnesium RDA and the magnesium RDA is like the vitamin d rda significantly below what is the optimum amount for good health.

Correcting magnesium and vitamin d status is both cheaper and safer than continuing to treat the results of vitamin d and magnesium deficiency.

Re: Statins

Well I can understand that. It is mindblowing that there is no scientific evidence that statins help women yet they keep being prescribed.
Sure with a Total cholesterol of 12 it's important to understand how to reduce that number but this can be done safely and naturally without the use of drugs that produce side effects.
Dr Davis of the Track your Plaque website details and example of how to do it here

Re: Statins

Chris Masterjohn's Cholesterol and Health site gives you a better understanding of how important cholesterol is.

It's very important to understand where Statins work in the cholesterol metabolism pathway



If you look at the top of the chart you see where Statins are intervening so everything downstream of that intervention will be reduced.

So it's not only cholesterol but also Ubiqinone (CoQ10) and on the other side one of the 19 reactions that LANOSTEROL is involved is the production of 7 dehydrocholesterol which is the precusor molecule for Vitamin D3 (Cholecalciferol).
So EVERYONE taking statins should also be taking CoQ10 and VitaminD3 because their ability to produce both these is inevitably compromised by the statin.

Re: Statins

For Ted Hutchinson
Good morning Ted. I have been watching this thread with interest for a little while now and I wonder if you could let folks know what your scientific background and professional qualifications are and/or what your profession is/was. Are you a clinician?

Re: Statins

The reason I post links to the scientific evidence is because that is what is important.
Who anyone is or who they claim to be is totally irrelevant. I post in my own name so people can recognise (and avoid if they want to) my posts.

If you have a reading age above 12 you should be able to understand, or have a reasonable grasp of my posts and by repeatedly reading the science and blog items that explain that science in layman's language everyone of us here can become as knowledgeable as health professionals.

We have got to try to make the effort to understand how consensus medical opinion has become separated from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE.

I don't want anyone to believe what I say, I want you to follow the links I present, make the effort needed to understand those links yourself, and UNDERSTAND, how modern medical research is showing there are better ways to lose weight than those that have failed for the last 30years. There are better ways to prevent Diabetes than the failed policies and practices we currently use and more importantly we can and should be taking action now to reduce/prevent cancer and dementia incidence.

The science is there to help us make rational and evidence based decisions.

It was 60 years ago they first understood low vitamin D status was associated with MS incidence.
Because there is so much money to be made from treating MS with medication there is no incentive to take any action that may reduce the incidence of MS.

We have all got to take responsibility for our own health and try to make the effort to understand how best to avoid those factors that drive the most common chronic conditions. When we do that we will be in a better position to understand how the medications offered to us by our doctors may help treat the symptoms and how they may fail to treat the cause of the condition. Only when we treat the cause of our problems will we be able reduce our reliance on medication.

I had polio as a child and 30+ years later experienced premature ageing, constant pain, mental health problems and increased levels of disability. I exhausted the range of prescription pain, mental health, medications and became resistant to all antibiotics so was faced with the uncomfortable and depressing prospect of spending the rest of my life in a wheelchair being cared for by others. This drove my determination to understand the basis of chronic pain, the way ageing affects mental health and the way immune function can be improved. So I now no longer take any prescription medications although of course if they were required I would do so. I'm not against modern medicine but I think it's best if we rely on it only as a last resort.

We now have the internet and access to much of the modern science is free and online, and MOST RESEARCHERS will, if you ask them nicely, forward full text papers to those who contact them, and some will answer questions if you are unable to understand what the paper is trying to explain.

So over time you can build your understanding of your own condition and by keeping up to date with the science you may be in a position to make informed judgements of what may be your best bet way of heading off further deterioration and maybe restoring some of your former strength and mobility, and immune function.

We all know that as we age human ability to create melatonin and vitamin D3 naturally declines. We can choose to lose the neuroprotection melatonin and vitamin D offer or we can cheaply and easily replace those missing natural neuroprotective hormones.

We can also all follow the example of

TEDxIowaCity - Dr. Terry Wahls - Minding Your Mitochondria

Re: Statins

Hi Ted...I am not disputing the evidence you are posting and all the associated information ....but despite having a a reading age considerably more than 12 years I cannot pronounce the words let alone digest that information...All i know is that statins screwed my life up ..this was proved beyond a doubt over a year trying different types simvastatin , pravastatin, atorvastatin....If what you have mentioned is correct and the simple addition of certain vitamins or additives is appropriate whilst taking statins and is a well documented as you suggest, then WHY are patients who experience this side effects not advised of this ....is it a conspiracy to kill off the sick who use the NHS resources or is it a tit for tat argument between the drug manufacturers and the medical profession. i can appreciate you have had your own problems in the past as i have my own now but i am resigned to leading a comfortable life if not a long one. The pain and discomfort both physical and mental that statins caused to me made my mind up for me ....
PS with reference to the conspiracy theories I still believe men landed on the moon

Re: Statins

You do right Steve, if statins don't suit you you leave them alone.
Everybody needs vitamins, but once again, most vitamins can be gained by the food we eat, and not the supplements, you have to have a regular blood test to see what vits you are short of if any.
So correct diet for You is important and a good dietician can tell you what you need, and not someone on the internet, they don't know you from Adam, and we are not all the same.

Re: Statins

Health professionals can only give advice and make recommendations based on CONSENSUS medical opinion.
If they give advice that is outside of the consensus then they put themselves in legal and insurance liability jeopardy.
So there will be a lag time between the research showing that statins probably do more harm than good and this becoming common knowledge amongst doctors and health professionals.
The training and retraining that doctors/health professionals get is generally funded and provided by the drug companies so their training will inevitably be slanted to the drug companies understanding of the evidence.
If you look at the people who have backed the National Obesity Forum and the panels that provide obesity advice these are all people and organizations that have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation. If you look at the people who provide support for Diabetes UK or Alzheimer's UK you just have to follow the money to see why these organizations are reluctant to offer any advice that actually will prevent the onset of those conditions.
It isn't that the evidence doesn't exist.

We've known for well over 100years that hyperglycemia is linked to cancer incidence, everyone knows that glucose is cancer cells preferred fuel but that isn't and never will be reflected in government policy because the Government only takes advice from organizations that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It is not a conspiracy it's simply the way the world works.

Follow the money.
Ask yourself how come Blair can earn the money he does?
If he had stood up to the drug companies or the finance industry and put the best interests of UK citizens first, do you really think he'd be able to earn £12million a year now?

Re: Statins

Ted
The reason I post links to the scientific evidence is because that is what is important.
Who anyone is or who they claim to be is totally irrelevant. I post in my own name so people can recognise (and avoid if they want to) my posts.

If you have a reading age above 12 you should be able to understand, or have a reasonable grasp of my posts and by repeatedly reading the science and blog items that explain that science in layman's language everyone of us here can become as knowledgeable as health professionals.

Rena
I confirm that I have a reading age above 12 Ted and thank you for your reply to my query,
The term “health professional” is a widely generalised term and I would say it is really a matter of “horses for courses” Ted. For example, an orthopaedic surgeon could not attempt the work of a neurosurgeon - a dentist would not be a clinical psychiatrist (if you get my drift). So whilst lay people may pick up knowledge by reading the work of others, it is not wise take at face value every paper written, or to claim from it a great deal of practical expertise and try to apply the knowledge gained with any degree of discrimination to individuals across the board.

Ted
We have got to try to make the effort to understand how consensus medical opinion has become separated from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE.

Rena
I don’t believe it has Ted - everything taught and applied these days in health care has to be evidence based.

Ted
I don't want anyone to believe what I say, I want you to follow the links I present, make the effort needed to understand those links yourself, and UNDERSTAND, how modern medical research is showing there are better ways to lose weight than those that have failed for the last 30years. There are better ways to prevent Diabetes than the failed policies and practices we currently use and more importantly we can and should be taking action now to reduce/prevent cancer and dementia incidence.

Rena
I understand what you are saying and I personally believe there is no easier way to lose weight than by reducing intake and maintaining a balanced diet comprised of nutrients tailored to an individual’s requirements and medical needs. If you have individual medical problems it is sensible to seek a GP referral and take advantage of the expertise of a clinical dietitian‘s knowledge and training.

Ted
The science is there to help us make rational and evidence based decisions.

Rena
I agree, there is a wealth of information out in the public domain; the trick is for the lay person to apply it to an individual need. However, for many it can be complicated and worrying. I don’t see why people should “go it alone” when there are people trained to help make rational and evidence based decisions. After getting to 74 at his over 65 routine health check it was discovered that my husband’s cholesterol was a bit high (probably because - he has put on some weight and not been as active lately). The GP didn’t automatically reach for the statins. He was given options to choose from, After discussion it was mutually agreed that he would try to adjust his levels by adapting his diet and getting a bit more active over the next six months. This, I think, is fair enough and sensible.

Ted
It was 60 years ago they first understood low vitamin D status was associated with MS incidence.
Because there is so much money to be made from treating MS with medication there is no incentive to take any action that may reduce the incidence of MS.

We have all got to take responsibility for our own health and try to make the effort to understand how best to avoid those factors that drive the most common chronic conditions. When we do that we will be in a better position to understand how the medications offered to us by our doctors may help treat the symptoms and how they may fail to treat the cause of the condition. Only when we treat the cause of our problems will we be able reduce our reliance on medication.

Rena
MS is not a common chronic condition. It is complex and variable in its nature and progression - if it were simply chronic it would be much easier to help sufferers.

Ted
I had polio as a child and 30+ years later experienced premature ageing, constant pain, mental health problems and increased levels of disability. I exhausted the range of prescription pain, mental health, medications and became resistant to all antibiotics so was faced with the uncomfortable and depressing prospect of spending the rest of my life in a wheelchair being cared for by others. This drove my determination to understand the basis of chronic pain, the way ageing affects mental health and the way immune function can be improved. So I now no longer take any prescription medications although of course if they were required I would do so. I'm not against modern medicine but I think it's best if we rely on it only as a last resort.

Rena
I am sorry to hear of the problems you live with Ted, but I am pleased to know you are not against taking necessary medication.

Ted
We now have the internet and access to much of the modern science is free and online, and MOST RESEARCHERS will, if you ask them nicely, forward full text papers to those who contact them, and some will answer questions if you are unable to understand what the paper is trying to explain.

So over time you can build your understanding of your own condition and by keeping up to date with the science you may be in a position to make informed judgements of what may be your best bet way of heading off further deterioration and maybe restoring some of your former strength and mobility, and immune function.

Rena
I agree, it is important for individuals to have a knowledgeable understanding of their own body and health condition and be willing to do their best to minimise further deterioration, if there is something they can do to help it. I don’t think there are easy answers though and scientific research should always be challenged - What we think we understand is constantly changing and developing - our medical knowledge is not written in tablets of stone.

Ted
We all know that as we age human ability to create melatonin and vitamin D3 naturally declines. We can choose to lose the neuroprotection melatonin and vitamin D offer or we can cheaply and easily replace those missing natural neuroprotective hormones.

Rena
I don’t think I am the only one to believe that the world of science and discovery is complicated Ted - I digress, but we are destroying much of the world before we understand the benefits and functions of many things, discovered and undiscovered. I would be the first to admit that there is much we don’t know and will probably never understand. The best we can do is sift and sort what we can from what proven evidence we have available at the time and do the best we can with it.
We cannot avoid the inevitable and little is certain except that - we are born, we live and we die - We all experience varying fortunes and are given our own unique set of cards to play with. Genetically, some have a better hand of cards than others - we are not all equal as far as our health goes - and I think many things are a matter of trade off. A simple example of what I am trying to say is that a competitive runner may do physical damage striving to excel, his limbs may suffer - but given the information, that runner is prepared to accept the trade off. Similarly, the miner may ruin his health in work and trying to keep his family fed and clothed - another trade off.
Sorry Ted, have digressed a bit, I know, but my main point is that I don't think things are as simple as just adding or taking away something to solve or minimise a problem, particularly where medicine and our health is concerned.