Cholesterol Lowering Drugs May Be Harmful

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
17,501
Location
Clovis, CA
Cholesterol lowering drugs may be harmful. I didn't know this until I ran into a YouTube Video on the subject.

From a linked article in the video:

Quote:
The take-home message of this entire body of research indicates that there is zero advantage of taking statin drugs if you are over the age of 65. The whole purpose of statins is to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes, and the only reason statins help is because of the drug’s mild-inflammatory effect. Unfortunately, statins decrease the production of CoQ10 which is the #1 most important nutrient when it comes to the integrity of the vascular system. Talk to your doctor about getting off statins and reducing inflammation the natural way.

Link to above quote

From a separate article:

Quote:
Cholesterol
Of course, statins inhibit the production of cholesterol–they do this very well. Nowhere is the failure of our medical system more evident than in the wholesale acceptance of cholesterol reduction as a way to prevent disease–have all these doctors forgotten what they learned in Biochemistry 101 about the many roles of cholesterol in the human biochemistry? Every cell membrane in our body contains cholesterol because cholesterol is what makes our cells waterproof–without cholesterol we could not have a different biochemistry on the inside and the outside of the cell. When cholesterol levels are not adequate, the cell membrane becomes leaky or porous, a situation the body interprets as an emergency, releasing a flood of corticoid hormones that work by sequestering cholesterol from one part of the body and transporting it to areas where it is lacking. Cholesterol is the body’s repair substance: scar tissue contains high levels of cholesterol, including scar tissue in the arteries.

Link to above quote

After watching the video and doing some more Google searches on the internet, I discovered a huge war being waged against statin drugs like Lipitor, Zocor, and Atorvastatin. I had no idea there was so much controversy surrounding the drugs. My Mom was prescribed 5mg of Atorvastatin per day by her cardiologist and I'm wondering if I should take her off of it. Please advise.
 
I can't see taking my medical advice from YouTube, I let my Doctor do that.
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato
I can't see taking my medical advice from YouTube, I let my Doctor do that.


The thing about it is though, a lot of the articles advising against statin drugs are written by doctors.
21.gif
 
Obviously, it would be better to lower cholesterol naturally, but that takes discipline and effort. It is better to take statins than live with 350 LDL for people who either are unwilling to change their lifestyle or are genetically predisposed to high cholesterol.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Kuato
I can't see taking my medical advice from YouTube, I let my Doctor do that.


The thing about it is though, a lot of the articles advising against statin drugs are written by doctors.
21.gif


Statins have been one of the most studied drugs on the planet. The overwhelming number of mainstream docs and medical centers recommend them when your risk of living 10 years is 15% (do to circulatory issues). I started on them at the age of 68. My risk was 15% and now theoretically its 7.5%

Latest study indicates the use of statins should be increased.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherpe...s/#6dd76bb348c1

Please continue to go to Youtube for medical advice...they know best.

Obviously you are
Trolling.gif
Trolling.gif
Trolling.gif
Trolling.gif
Trolling.gif
Trolling.gif

(as usual)
 
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
Obviously, it would be better to lower cholesterol naturally, but that takes discipline and effort. It is better to take statins than live with 350 LDL for people who either are unwilling to change their lifestyle or are genetically predisposed to high cholesterol.


But they're saying that cholesterol is actually good for you.
confused2.gif


Quote:
Cholesterol is vital to proper neurological function. It plays a key role in the formation of memory and the uptake of hormones in the brain, including serotonin, the body’s feel-good chemical. When cholesterol levels drop too low, the serotonin receptors cannot work. Cholesterol is a major component of the brain, much of it in the myelin sheaths that insulate nerve cells and in the synapses that transmit nerve impulses.

Some researchers believe that cholesterol acts as an antioxidant. This is the likely explanation for the fact that cholesterol levels tend to go up with age. As an antioxidant, cholesterol protects us against free radical damage that leads to heart disease and cancer.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Obviously you are
Trolling.gif
Trolling.gif
Trolling.gif
Trolling.gif
Trolling.gif
Trolling.gif

(as usual)


NOT TROLLING! My Mom is taking this drug and I need advice!
 
Well, there is good (HDL) and bad (LDL) cholesterol. Generally speaking, you want high HDL and low LDL.

But extreme values in either is not good. For example, high HDL is generally considered "good" but if you are over 100, then it may indicate that something inflammatory is going on.

Bottomline is if your LDL>160 and HDL is not in the range 50
Edit: I agree with Al. Statins do a good job of cutting risk and if you look at the body of evidence for most people in the population with high cholesterol, statins are a good idea.
 
Last edited:
My doctor knows less about cholesterol and body's biochemistry than U-tube does.

Cholesterol was chosen as the poster child of heart disease back in the 1960's and 1970's. So the medical community is not yet willing to let it go...and all the profits associated with trying to manage it. There are other factors in play that are probably more important than cholesterol to track internal inflammation. The ratio of Cholesterol to HDL, as well as triglycerides to HDL is more definitive than just the total cholesterol or LDL numbers. Homocysteine, CRP-HS, NO and ADMA linkage, platten A/B LDL, are some markers that are likely more useful to heart and artery health than cholesterol. If all my other markers were in line, I'd not worry one bit about a higher than normal cholesterol level.

The real truth to your heart and blood vessel health is in your coronary calcification which is an excellent predictor of heart health. Unfortunately, that is usually never routinely tested. The "real" tests don't get performed on you until you have a heart attack or show the symptoms on getting one. By that point, it's often too late to reverse the effects. I did read something today in the paper about testing for calcium in tissues and blood vessels with a sonogram during women's mammograms.

It's all a work in progress. Unfortunately, what we get at the doctor's office is probably decades behind the state-of-the-art. My wife at age 62 has elevated total cholesterol that's mostly heredity. Even with a near perfect diet over several years total # never got below 220. Her primary care doctor kept on pushing here to take statins. Based on what she read on it, no way that was going to happen.
 
Originally Posted By: 69GTX


My wife at age 62 has elevated total cholesterol that's mostly heredity. Even with a near perfect diet over several years total # never got below 220. Her primary care doctor kept on pushing here to take statins. Based on what she read on it, no way that was going to happen.


Did she have high cholesterol all her life or post-menopause? 220 also isn't necessarily bad if HDL is high.
 
My mom's is over 350 I'm pretty sure that doesn't pertain to her. They live on a farm and with a huge garden.. can't outrun those gene's. Turning 60 in July and I'll admit I'm a bit worried. Great grandpa passed from it and grandpa has had more stints than you can count on one hand. Mine has always been around 200 but after riding 1k+ miles on the bike in a year dropped to 154! Taking statins gives me a un-lubed feeling.. and I wish I was joking!
 
As someone pointed out, I wouldn't take medical advice from YouTube. I have been taking statins for about 5 years now and it has made a significant difference in my cholesterol levels.

At the military hospital I go to, all of my doctors have highly approved of the treatment except for one GP civilian doctor. He stresses zero medications, more exercise (as if I don't get enough), and a vegetarian diet (yeah, good luck with that).

If you truly are concerned, I recommend you find another doctor and get a second opinion. I can't imagine anyone here being able to dispense qualified medical advice (sight unseen) that I would trust.
 
Originally Posted By: 69GTX

Cholesterol was chosen as the poster child of heart disease back in the 1960's and 1970's. So the medical community is not yet willing to let it go.

That's your opinion. Modern university centers are not stuck in the 60's. Oh, I forgot..any time research provides answers its always bc they are taking money from the drug, oil, automotive, government and [insert favorite conspiracy company here]


Quote:
The ratio of Cholesterol to HDL, as well as triglycerides to HDL is more definitive than just the total cholesterol or LDL numbers.

Absolutely and statins lower both LDL and Total cholesterol.

Quote:
It's all a work in progress. Unfortunately, what we get at the doctor's office is probably decades behind the state-of-the-art. My wife at age 62 has elevated total cholesterol that's mostly heredity. Even with a near perfect diet over several years total # never got below 220. Her primary care doctor kept on pushing here to take statins. Based on what she read on it, no way that was going to happen.

Your wife..your life. Too bad you don't seek the latest information. My Total/HDL was 4 now it is 2.5!! (less than 3.5 is ideal..the lower the better.
 
Originally Posted By: RW1
As someone pointed out, I wouldn't take medical advice from YouTube.


I'm not taking advice from YouTube. I posted that video link and all the subsequent links so people like you, my Oil Buddies, can interpret that information and advise me on what action to take. I place way more value on the advice I get from this board than than I do from YouTube or the doctors. And just in case somebody thinks I'm kidding around, I'm not; I'm serious.
 
I work in clinical research. Clinical research is where drugs are tested on people to see if they are safe and efficacious. All drugs have side effects. The FDA and other drug safety pharmacovigilence organizations have all the data. Having said all that, are you better taking the statin or not taking it?

I take a statin but I'm having second thoughts about it. My cholesterol is not that bad. I'm probably going to stop taking it or cut down to a few times a week.

Now, regarding Merk's mother. Is she better off taking it or not taking it? Need to know her health history to make any sort of call about that. My Dr. says his mother takes a statin every day. So, it's not as if every Dr. is against them.
 
Merkava, I think you will find whatever evidence you are looking for on the internet. So if you are paranoid and looking for bad news about statins you will find it. It's like trying to decide whether you should buy a Toyota or not and only googling "Major Toyota problems" for your research.

Statins cut risk. They also have side effects. You weigh the costs against the benefits. There is nothing that has zero cost, including "natural" methods of reducing cholesterol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom