STATINS are pure evil

It's amazing how many people I run across who have been put on this pill.

Doctors hand them out like candy, and don't know what they're doing.

For those who want to inform themselves and their families, here are a
few articles that will bring you up to speed.

Bottom line: Stay away from Statins! They will not make you better!

There are proper ways to clear your arteries.

This is a good collection of articles:

http://www.whale.to/a/cholesterol.html

Specifically I like:
http://www.whale.to/b/cassel3.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron44.htm
"In the new study researchers found that statins activate a gene signal in muscles called
atrogen-1. When this gene activates it targets key muscle proteins for destruction. The
activation of this gene drives the process of muscle atrophy and muscle wasting. It is
induced in cardiac muscle in failing hearts. Why on earth would any person want this gene
activated by a drug?

Scroll down on this one:
http://www.health-heart.org/

NNT of 100 anyone?
http://thecholesterolliereview.com/dr-dwight-lundell-great-statin-scam/

What a corrupt system!

Wes

 

It's at pretty well known side effect that statins cause muscle pain in some. You also shouldn't be drinking grape fruit juice either when on this med...(as well as others) because it increases the potency (P450 inhibitor in the liver, which normally degrades the drug). I don't think one should go around saying that statins are bad for people. Pretty bold statement.

 

He is right. Statins are bad for people. Studies have shown that they don't do what they are supposed to do. And they have bad side effects. If that is not "bad", what is?

 

Another interesting article:
Do Cholesterol Drugs do any Good?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_04/b4068052092994.htm

How about these for comments:
http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=all&style=wide&productId=26742&productCode=spec

Mar 11, 2011 4:20 PM GMT
"In 2007 I was put on 40mg of Simvastatin. My LDL reading was 140-145.
I developed foot, muscle pain, loss of muscle tissue, severe dizziness, loss of libido,
memory loss and constipation. My compaints were dismissed with: "Just a little
Neuropathy". I did not associate the statin with my problems. I had my doctor
for over thirty-five years. I trusted him. I was on statin for 18 months. I lost my job
because of physical limitations. I found a internet site about statin issues and stopped
taking the medicine. Dizziness is gone but four years later all other problems still there.
I am told that symptoms will improve but I don't believe it. Statins are poison for some
people."

OR...

Jun 20, 2009 3:42 PM GMT
"I was on Vytorin and then generic prevacol for two years. I suffer memeory loss, muscle
pain, severe rash, trembling muscles, loss of feeling in feet. And get this, after one year on
statin I was dx as diabetic. After two years and internet research I have quit the statins 8
days ago, rash is slowly slowly getting better I have had a headache since I quit them but
the wierdest thing so far is my blood sugar levels have decreased to the point I am
lowering my oral meds as taking them makes me too low. I have no history of diabetes in
my family I was the first, and not overweight. I don't know if it's a fluke or what so I am
carefully monitoring my levels till I see doc on July 2. These drugs in my opinion are
dangerous for many people and my cholestoral numbers aren't any better than when I
started. Triglycerides went down ONLY after I started eating flax seed in my oatmeal each
morning. Doctor did not believe me when I told him of memory loss and he saw the rash
every time I went I complained of it. So I had to figure all this out on my own."

It's prematurely aging people right before your eyes.

Wes

 

If you have high cholestrol, instead of statins, you might want to try the PAGG protocol.
Policosanol
Alpha lipoic acid
Green tea
Garlic

It seemed to work for the author of the Four Hour Body. At least these items won't harm your body (taken in moderation).

Certainly, statins won't fix it.

 

Wes are you a Dr?

 

Why would you ask that?

Do you think doctors know everything? That modern science has solved every mystery? That western medicine has the cure for every ailment?

 

Or try nothing at all.

http://www.health-heart.org/cholesterol.htm

In Russia they consider Low Cholesterol the danger,
and they should according to the above.

Wes

 

i think some of you are going way overboad - if you are overweight/ or slightly off your bmi and your body produces more ldl and hdl numbers and if they are off, a tiny pill will help prevent a heart attack - which the likely hood is more likely , than any real long term effects of taking a pill... this has been proven , many people died in the 70s and 80s before these pills were invented correctly .... imagine if McDonalds was a spopular and availavble back then as it was today, how mnay more deaths would have happened via heart attack

 

One of the biggest reasons for high cholesterol is Adrenal Fatigue.

Stress > Adrenals dump adrenaline, cortisol, etc into the system on a continual basis > liver responds by releasing cholesterol to remanufacture these depleted hormones > cholesterol reading is higher. (simplified analysis)
My internist couldn't even grasp this.

Two others in addition to what Zack stated:
- Licorice Root
- Withania/Ashwaganda

So, take a Statin to stick a hot poker in the liver to eliminate its production of cholesterol AND disrupt its 300 other functions. Pure idiocy!

-Billy

 

I'd suggest reading the book and all of his disclaimers before jumping on the protocol. He admits he's a hacker, is looking for ways to work the body's systems to his benefits, and he's NOT a doctor, and don't try any of his suggestions without medical supervision

 

I was on Lipator. My Colesterol dropped. Then, I went in for a routine blood test and my liver came back "abnormal".

My Dr immeditately took me off Lipator and guess what... normal liver function again.

Never again!

 

Not entirely true. Your adrenal glands are split into two areas. Medulla (inside part) and cortex (outside part). The cortex uses cholesterol to synthesize 3 things: aldosterone (salt regulation), cortisol (sugar regulation), and androgens (sex hormone regulation). The medulla is separate entirely and even derived from a different cell origin (neuro-based). That makes epinephrine/norepinephrine ("adrenaline") from protein precursors like tyrosine. Not steroid precursors like cholesterol.

In a perfect world, no one would have to be on any drugs as they all pretty much have some side effects vs. no side effects if your body is in order (it's called risks vs. benefits and it varies in people). Some people are just too lazy to eat right and exercise on a regular basis and want a statin.

 

High Cholesterol does NOT cause heart disease

http://trusted.md/blog/vreni_gurd/2007/04/13/high_cholesterol_does_not_cause_heart_disease#axzz1GrkHk8Mj

 

High Cholesterol is Good

http://thefastertimes.com/foodpolitics/2009/09/17/high-cholesterol-is-good/

 

to an extent. yes.

There's a reason why statins are prescribed. It's not a giant conspiracy (with the exception of paying more for Lipitor vs. generic). It's really easy to dismiss a drug if you don't feel any symptom and it's a preventive medication vs. curative. But ultimately it's up to the patient to make the decision whether they want to decrease their risk for heart disease or not. While there are idiosyncratic symptoms with every medication depending on patient specific variables, but the overall effects are mild to mil. If you don't like the mild side effects (and trust me, they are mild compared to the other medications out there) and think they are dangerous, it's your prerogative to get that heart attack you so desperately want. Just don't whine about it afterwards.

 

really? really? and the decades of research must mean nothing to you? The guy who linked cholesterol to heart disease won a Nobel for his work. I don't think it was snake oil based on the overwhelming evidence and scientific scrutiny.

 

I have read the book, and certainly I took it with a pinch of salt. I took his disclaimers very seriously.

I also found quite a bit of the book to be nonsense, to tell the truth. For instance, his medical vacations - they make sense in some cases, but he looks at it as a way to save on holidays. Same with his "huge increase" in cell count...he started off with a depressed count, removed what was apparently the cause, and is calling his return to normal a "huge increase". Complete tripe.

Some of his exercise routines I have adopted into mine. I was already doing kettlebells. I also do gymnastics training and krav maga. In addition I run (used to do 10 milers, now I do 3-4 mile sprints, mostly barefoot), and bike (45 minutes, outdoors, or huge mountains on weekends). I am slowly adding in swimming, just to have one more thing, and to replace soccer as I don't think I want that kind of wear and tear on my body. I still play, just not as much. I am focusing on proper technique right now, breathing, angle of entry, stroke, kick, etc. I hope to do 45 minutes of swimming once or twice a week. His tips on running were so so, his tips on swimming, as well as the Total Immersion videos he recommended, I am finding them very helpful.

The word hacking is neither here nor there. It just means you exploit something without necessarily having studied it to the nth degree, or in the way that it's intended to be used. If it works, great. I don't try to hack my body, but the PAGG protocol is natural substances, in very low dosages. Obviously, if you have cholesterol issues, you would be monitoring it, so it should become apparent quite quickly if it's working for you or not. If not, at least you haven't introduced harmful toxins in your body. Garlic, decaffeinated green tea, etc., are all harmless in moderation.

I try not to be "religious" about health. I just try to do healthy things like exercise, no smoking, etc. and have a balanced perspective. I don't rely blindly on western medicine, or eastern, or on any one thing. I also make a point of actively forcing myself not to worry about things I can't control--this helps relieve a lot of stress, I believe. I constantly come across people all wound up over things that are way beyond their control, or are so trivial that they really should be focusing on other things. They are obsessed with car dings, what others are doing across the street, the news half a world away, their kids' futures, etc., etc. I can see them getting unhealthy as they let the worry take over--imagine the cortisol raging in their bodies, destroying their health. My attitude is, if you can, change your circumstances to fix the problem. Otherwise, there's no point worrying about it. In fact, it's very harmful to do so.

I am 42, in better health than most 28 year olds. Your mileage may vary.

 

See, I think your attitude is incorrect, and misleading. You are presenting it as an either or problem. Either take statins, or get a heart attack (along with a mild insult about me desperately wanting one).

I don't believe statins are the cure. There is PLENTY of evidence to show that they don't help, and that they can do serious harm. So I won't take them if I ever get elevated cholesterol levels. I will try other things.

If you believe they will fix your malady, go ahead, take them. You know the pros and cons. Nobody is stopping you.

 

Not to mention you met the guy. (Very nice man, very humble)

 

No, but I think it would give a little more credibility to his remarks if he studied medicine instead of reading a few articles on the internet.

 

There is PLENTY of evidence that shows that they do help.

 

That logic has a flaw wide enough to drive a bus through it. What if traditional western medicine has a flawed understanding of the link between cholesterol and heart disease? You are saying he would have more credibility if he had the flawed understanding...

 

And PLENTY that shows they don't. So, if it's neither here nor there, why take it as religion that they do help, that cholesterol is indeed the culprit? To me, it's not cut and dry. I think they are on to something, but it's not as direct a causation as we are led to believe.

 

FWIW, kali has...to the extreme actually....she is likely forgotten more on cholesterol then most know about.

That said, I understand Zack's position. In the end its your body, don't like statins? Fine, don't take them. Life is too short to waste time arguing.

However someone's aversion to statins should not and will not prevent a doctor from recommending them (barring some counter-indication of course). It would be unethical.