It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....



High Cholesterol Message Board
Post New Thread   Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-11-2005, 05:54 PM   #16
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 711
HubbleRules HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

Arizona,

I'm with you!!

I place much more confidence in studies about natural remedies than in any study funded by a profit-seeking pharmaceutical company, or which was conducted by researchers who take consulting fees or accept funding from the pharmaceuticals. The financial conflict-of-interest that the FDA and many clinical-study research groups have with the pharmaceuticals today is incestuous to say the least.

The profits on drugs are so astronomical, that the pressure to push them on an unsuspecting public is overwhelming. Statins alone are a $27 BILLION dollar industry.... Like they say, money talks!!!

Congress didn't demand public hearings last summer about drug-saftey and the FDA's inability to protect the public from dangerous drugs for nothing. By the time congress gets involved, a situation is not just serious, it's damn near critical.

I think there is something about the efficacy of high-dose vitamin-c and l-lysine in reducing the risk of CHD. Several independent, non-pharmaceutical-tainted studies to date have indicated such a reduction in CHD - but only when the vitamin dosage was sufficient.

I believe these studies much more than anything funded by the makers of Baycol, Vioxx, or Celebrex et al.

By the way, the pharmaceuticals provide the vast majority of the funding for the New Drug Approval division of the FDA. If you were an employee in this division, would you dare to publish findings that reflected negatively on a new drug at the expense of having your department funding slashed by the pharmaceuticals, and your job put at risk? Or would you slant the research in favor of the drug and keep your job? Would you dare to conduct a study that applauded the benefits of a low-cost alternative to the drug (to wit, Vitamin-C)?? Congress is seriously considering (and rightly so) taking the funding of this FDA division out of the hands of the drug companies. THey are also considering funding post-approval studies of drugs to monitor their safety - something the FDA DOES NOT DO TODAY (as incredible as that sounds).

Once you understand this simple, but overwhelmingly powerful, financial conflict of interest plauguing the drug-approval process as it stands today, you begin to accept most clinical trials of drugs only with a huge grain of salt (and maybe a side-order of a mind-altering drug).

I think it will take years, but eventually, I think Pauling's therapy will be vindicated.

Regards,

HubbleRules

 
Sponsors Lightbulb
   
Old 04-11-2005, 07:14 PM   #17
JJ JJ is offline
Senior Veteran
(female)
 
JJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ct.
Posts: 3,733
JJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

A friend of mine emailed me today and told me she just learned that Paxil-CR was recalled due to "quality control" issues. Her daughter takes it for IBS, so now she has to call the dr. tomorrow to get something else.

It is getting really scarey with all these drugs being recalled for different issues, U don't know what to trust anymore. Then the drs. get upset if U question them about a drug they prescribe.....

I think it is time more and more people question the safety of meds. they are told to take. Somebody best do something to control this stuff before they kill us all off. JMHO

Have a good nite....

 
Old 04-12-2005, 05:22 PM   #18
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,508
Lenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

I can attest to the fact that a person can take from one to two grams of ascorbic acid a day for TWO DECADES while developing arterial blockages to the point of almost complete totality. I am, of course speaking of myself.
Vitamin C for the reduction of plaque is a complete and utter fraud.

Can ANYONE honestly believe that 1500 mg per day over a short trial caused the diminution of plaque in 1954 and it has remained an unused remedy? Please tell me nobody can actually believe that without believing in the tooth fairy. Can someone also tell me how the shrinking plaque was even DETERMINED with 1954 technology. What did they do, WEIGH patients to see if they lost plaque?
As for the horrid DRUG CABAL and the cult of secrecy; in this light how do you explain EVERYBODY being told to take unpatentable aspirin which is probably the very best cardiac drug in the pharmacopia. Wouldn't you expect the "secrets" of aspirin therapy to be held in same hidden vaults that the Vitamin C cure-all treatment is...buried deep under the Alps?

A test of ones strong belief in this therapy is when someone near and dear is facing congestive heart failure and multiple blockages/heart attacks. Will such a person dismiss his or his friend's doctors and buy a few 1000 tablet bottles of high dose Vitamin C? OR pray to the tooth fairy?

Last edited by Lenin; 04-12-2005 at 05:25 PM.

 
Old 04-12-2005, 05:55 PM   #19
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 711
HubbleRules HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

Lenin,

Are statins a complete and utter fraud because I personally experienced severe side-effects with them? I don't believe so, nor do I think anyone does. They clearly benefit high-risk, middle-aged males with a number of risk factors.

I understand your disbelief in vitamin-c and I'm sorry you ran into such serious CHD problems - hope you recover fully.

But there are a number of us who don't believe in statins either - and think their benefits have been inflated, their risks downplayed, and that they are flagrantly over-prescribed.

The verdict on statins is far from over - despite the fact that they are riding the crest right now. I still maintain that no study has ever indicated a longer lifespan for those taking statins versus those who don't. I also don't think anyone has shown a clear, definitive relation between cholesterol level and CHD. Very high cholesterol, and very low cholesterol seem to be clearly bad for you - in between is a gray zone. If there were such a definitive link between cholesterol and CHD, then 40% of heart attack victims would not have 'normal' cholesterol levels, but they do. Swedes have higher cholesterol levels than Americans, but a lower level of CHD... and on, and on, and on....
And I do steadfastly maintain that there are real and serious financial conflicts of interest between those certifying the safety of drugs, and the pharmaceuticals. So evidently does the U.S. Congress...

In any event, I'll never convince you that statins can be bad for a lot of people, and you'll never convince me that they're as good as they are touted to be. Time and further research will be the jury on this one. I for one am anxiously awaiting results of Dr. Golumb's UCSD Statin Study to shed more light on the side-effects of statins...

I respect your opinion, and hope statins work wonders for you.

I for one have been relatively free of CHD thus far, (at 51) and intend to stay so, but not by taking statins. Convince me that Baycol, Vioxx, and Celebrex problems were not known by the pharmaceuticals long ago, and that their recall is not indicative of a systemic problem with the drug approval process, and I'll reconsider my position.


Regards,

HubbleRules

 
Old 04-12-2005, 06:07 PM   #20
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 711
HubbleRules HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

Lenin,

As far as the ultimate test of one's faith, I had a loved one die of CHF 9 years ago, in a hospital, under the care of a team of cardiologists. We did everything that the doctor's suggested, and my father-in-law died at the young age of 64.

Had I known then what I know now, I would have had him taking 1000mg of CoQ10 daily, plus 6000mg of Vitamin C, 3000mg of l-Lysine, 1200mg of Folic Acid, plus Warafin.

HubbleRules

 
Old 04-12-2005, 07:11 PM   #21
JJ JJ is offline
Senior Veteran
(female)
 
JJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ct.
Posts: 3,733
JJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

Hubble, I also had 2 folks pass this year from heart attacks, and both had normal cholesterol. My BIL, was 71, and the other fellow was 58. Only thing they both had in common was diabetes, yet controlled for years. Neither were overweight, both were active, so I also question this cholesterol thing.

We could be 100% wrong, but until there is more studies done on these statins, I will fight my dr. about taking them. God bless folks who can take them and have no, or very little side effects, but I am hearing of way too many folks who do terrible on them, myself and hubby included. I wish I had the answer, but I don't, so the jury is still out in my opinon. Definitely think much more research needs to be done, not only on statins, but alot of other drugs they seem to shove on the market. Way too many drugs get recalled only after too many folks have suffered serious side effects, or died. JMHO

 
Old 04-13-2005, 03:53 AM   #22
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,508
Lenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

JJ,
Do you think that because people with normal cholesterol die of heart disease, it somehow diminishes the cardiac risk of high cholesterol? Do you think, by the same line of reasoning, that smoker's won't get lung cancer and emphysema in greater numbers becasue there are non-smokers who died of this disease....or that it's safe to drive drunk, because most auto deaths are caused by SOBER people?

Hubble,
Do you see LOGIC in saying that an efective drug's SIDE EFFECTS, however odious, somehow make it analagous to a totally ineffective drug therapy. I see these as two very different things.
I also have trouble with any line of thinking that goes vaguely like:

Cholesterol isn't the cause of heart disease,
Therefore Vitamin therapy is curative.

(But then so is cold water...and oregano...and baying at the moon on the summer solstice!)

 
Old 04-13-2005, 07:27 AM   #23
Senior Veteran
(female)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington coast
Posts: 1,341
Uff-Da! HB UserUff-Da! HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

Lenin - What I would like is an explanation for all the heart attacks where cholesterol is not a factor. Obviously something else is at work there. What is it? And is that "something else" the real reason people have heart attacks? Statins do seem to have some effect on lowering heart attack deaths, but is it because they lower cholesterol? Or is it because they affect something else in the body, not yet identified? I'm still suspicious that cholesterol may just be a marker, not a direct cause. No, I have no evidence that such is the case. But I don't see convincing evidence that high cholesterol causes heart disease, either. Yes, I try to keep my own cholesterol down in case it does prove to be an actual cause, but I don't have to be happy about the level of knowledge to back up that decision.

 
Old 04-13-2005, 07:44 AM   #24
JJ JJ is offline
Senior Veteran
(female)
 
JJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ct.
Posts: 3,733
JJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

Lenin, Uff said just about what I would say. NO, I don't think people without high cholesterol don't have heart attacks, but I really think most drs. scare the heck out of U if U do, and push like crazy for U to be on statins.

As I said before, to me the jury is still out on statins drugs, as I myself had rotten side effects, and hear of way too many other's that do. If these drugs don't agree with some folks, drs. should try and help the person do something else, as the QUALITY of life is as important as the length of it.

People are going to argue over these drugs for a long time, as there are believers and NON believers, but hey, this is America, so we get to have that freedom to express our view. I've said it over and over, if one can take the pills with no severe side effects, more power to them, but drs. shouldn't make those of us who can't take them feel guilty and scared. Obviously I want to get my numbers down, and am trying, but for now I have to rely on diet, exercise and suppliments.

Have a nice day...

 
Old 04-13-2005, 09:50 AM   #25
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,508
Lenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

For me the jury has returned a valid judgement being that statins lower certain blood lipids that are clearly shown to increase the odds of having a fatal or diisabling cardiac event when they are severely out of range. I think the evidence is overwhelming.


Quote:
But I don't see convincing evidence that high cholesterol causes heart disease, either
Uff-da...I don't think you've looked hard enough for the evidence and it's unfortunately beyong the board's allowed limits for me to assemble all the material links. It IS there.

I don't think there is any need to find the cause of all cardiac events to be certain of the cause of some or most of them, anymore than not being able to find the cause of all accidents is reason to believe that drunkenness isn't one of them.

One must be very careful with risk analysis because VERY FEW things in life present a 100% risk...maybe jumping off a building over 50 stories, or throwing oneself into the mouth of an active volcano.

On a very practical note, why would ANYONE who believes that High Cholesterol does not present a cardiac risk waste his or her time on a board called High Cholesterol? Is it to show others the error of their ways? I really would like to know.

I looked at the board directly under it and tried to imagine my posting on it saying that the Hip and Knee Replacements are bad, completely unnecessary, they don't hold up, doctors are only pushing them for the money, lots of people do well without hip replacements...I just can't picture doing that, I couldn't find any conceivable motivation.

Last edited by Lenin; 04-13-2005 at 10:01 AM.

 
Old 04-13-2005, 10:04 AM   #26
JJ JJ is offline
Senior Veteran
(female)
 
JJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ct.
Posts: 3,733
JJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

Lenin...I think most of the people here are undecided if cholesterol is a severe risk or not, and those that can't take statins are looking for info. to other solutions to lower their numbers. At least that is my reason for looking for alternatives. I personally don't think anyone is trying to discourage folks from taking statins, but trying to offer other suggestions that might help before they try them, or have already tried them and can't tolerate them.

As hubby's cardio man told us yesterday, he is finding more and more folks who can't take them and is trying to work with them on an alternative. He also believes if they aren't well tolerated, then it is not doing the person any good, as it is depleting their quality of life. Sometimes it is like a catch 22 situation with many folks. He also admitted he was taking Lipitor and is now finding himself having some side effects, so finally understands what his patients are complaining about.

 
Old 04-13-2005, 01:16 PM   #27
Senior Veteran
(female)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington coast
Posts: 1,341
Uff-Da! HB UserUff-Da! HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenin
On a very practical note, why would ANYONE who believes that High Cholesterol does not present a cardiac risk waste his or her time on a board called High Cholesterol? Is it to show others the error of their ways? I really would like to know.
Lenin, Lenin, not seeing convincing evidence that high cholesterol causes heart disease is not the same as believing that it does not. It means that in my book, the jury is still out. You apparently didn't notice that I said, "I try to keep my own cholesterol down in case it does prove to be an actual cause, but I don't have to be happy about the level of knowledge to back up that decision." Maybe I'm waiting for someone to convince me!

And on a very practical note, why would anyone whose doctor has told her she has high cholesterol and needs to lower it, and who has two brothers who are on statins (one of whom is now on his fourth statin, as he couldn't tolerate the first three) NOT want to be on a High Cholesterol board to see if she could find out more about what the score really is?

Yes, I've tried to do research on the web about it. But there are literally millions of articles, most of them useless. When one does find some which appear to be solid research, the medical lingo is often far beyond my ability to comprehend. And there are plenty of articles, including some by medical doctors and scientists who question the current thinking.

 
Old 04-13-2005, 07:49 PM   #28
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 711
HubbleRules HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

JJ,

I'm so sorry to hear about your recent losses this past year. You feel so helpless when someone close to you is struck down - but there's nothing you can do most of the time except be there for them.

I agree that with you and your hubby's past problems with statins, you'd be asking for trouble to go on them again. I will never return to them - I don't care what my doctor says. I can always get another doctor, but not my health.

Take care...

HubbleRules

 
Old 04-13-2005, 08:22 PM   #29
JJ JJ is offline
Senior Veteran
(female)
 
JJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ct.
Posts: 3,733
JJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB UserJJ HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

Thanx so much for those kind words Hubble. Yes it is tuff to lose folks close to you. Except for my 3 children and 3 grand kids, I have no family, so all we have is hubby's sister and her son. My kids all live out of state, so getting together is rare, so we have to enjoy each visit.

My BIL suffered quite a bit before finally passing, so it was a very hard time for all of us, and we try to be there for hubby's sis and son as much as possible. The other friend was so sudden, it really shook us all up, but like U said, we just try to be there for his wife and 2 children also.

As far as the statins, we have told our drs. we will not take them, and so far they have been extremly good about it. Right now I have a new dr., so I hope she is not going to give me a hard time in the future, I'm getting too old for dr. hopping.....

U take care, and let me know if U ever rent that movie. I see The Focklers is out on DVD, so I want to try and rent that this weekend, I need a good laugh. Take care, sleep well, and chat with ya soon... zzzzz

 
Old 04-13-2005, 08:34 PM   #30
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 711
HubbleRules HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenin
Lenin,

Are statins a complete and utter fraud because I personally experienced severe side-effects with them? I don't believe so, nor do I think anyone does. They clearly benefit high-risk, middle-aged males with a number of risk factors.

Hubble,
Do you see LOGIC in saying that an efective drug's SIDE EFFECTS, however odious, somehow make it analagous to a totally ineffective drug therapy. I see these as two very different things.
Lenin,

Read my statement carefully - I was being facetious. Perhaps I misread your statement earlier in this thread about C being a total fraud because it did not work for you personally... I was drawing a similar inference about statins based on my experience to point out the fallacy in the position.

I'm one of those who believes less and less as days go by in the link between cholesterol and CHD. I think more and more researchers are beginning to focus on inflammation as a better marker for who is at risk than high cholesterol. I further suspect that statins reduce CHD not thru their cholesterol lowering level, but by somehow reducing inflammation. Also, I don't think anyone knows the root cause of the inflammation at this point, and that is probably THE KEY to defeating CHD.

I guess what intrigues me so much about the VitaminC protocol is that it makes logical sense to me. If humans don't synthesize C, and C is necessary for collagen synthesis, then I can see how the vascular walls of the arteries and veins could become weak and porous due to lack of collagen. I can also understand how evolution would favor deposition of lipoproteins on the vascular walls as a means of strengthening them to prevent blood loss...

That makes more sense to me than the link between cholesterol levels and CHD. If this link were valid, I'd expect a more or less direct relationship between cholesterol level and CHD and heart attacks - but I've yet to see a study that conclusively indicates this. I'd also expect far fewer heart attacks in people with 'low' or 'normal' cholesterol levels. It also muddies the waters when you look at cholesterol levels around the world - some countries with significantly higher cholesterol levels have significantly lower levels of CHD. Like I've said before, extremely high cholesterol is definitely bad - I agree totally. I just think the guidelines are pushing cholesterol too low - there are health problems associate with too low a level of cholesterol.

I don't think anyone truly knows what causes CHD at this point, or how to prevent or cure it... There are a number of competing theories, and an abundance of conflicting evidence...

And I'm on this High Cholesterol board due to problems with I experienced with statins, which were explicitly prescribed to reduce my 'high cholesterol'. To begin with, I was desperately looking for anything that would make my muscle pains and weakness go away, and I came here for advise. Also I, like many others, are trying to find ways to prevent heart disease, and this seems to be one of the boards with the most advise and discussion around that point. The Heart Disorders board seems more appropriate for those who have had heart attacks, angina, have stents or other serious heart problems. I'm trying to avoid these problems in the first place.

Oh, and I also like exchanging thoughts with the board members. It gets to feel like home after a while.

Keep your posts coming - I enjoy reading them!!

Regards,
HubbleRules

Last edited by HubbleRules; 04-13-2005 at 08:38 PM. Reason: Typo plus forgot to add somthing

 
Closed Thread

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Board Replies Last Post
Hormonal therapy side effects: likelihood, seriousness, countermeasures IADT3since2000 Cancer: Prostate 6 03-10-2010 04:57 PM
High total cholesterol and very high LDL pattonedn High Cholesterol 9 03-03-2008 06:30 AM
Statin side effects, RYR and vitamin C boubou High Cholesterol 5 01-15-2008 06:34 PM
Zocor side effects drupe56 High Cholesterol 10 09-25-2007 12:48 PM
Not Worried About My High Cholesterol aamsaams1 High Cholesterol 42 09-01-2007 09:16 PM




Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Join Our Newsletter

Stay healthy through tips curated by our health experts.

Whoops,

There was a problem adding your email Try again

Thank You

Your email has been added




Top 10 Drugs Discussed on this Board.
(Go to DrugTalk.com for complete list)
Aspirin
Crestor
Lipitor
Niaspan
Pravachol
  Simvastatin Tricor
Vytorin
Zetia
Zocor







All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 PM.



Site owned and operated by HealthBoards.com™
Copyright and Terms of Use © 1998-2014 HealthBoards.comô All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!