Sanitarium "One Square Meal"

[GPSGuided]

Define "serious health issues" and "improved". Anecdotal or statistical? What's the specificity on statin use?

BTW, I have a friend who is a GP. Many of his patients have serious health issues despite trying non-pharmaceutical measures. Quite a few were placed on statin where indicated and their health improved. LOL

[wayno]

well he's documented it extensively online

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=gary+ ... 3&ie=UTF-8

[Picaro]

I think it is a bit dismissive to paint the whole idea as charlatans making a buck.
There are far more than this handful of professionals looking at inflammation as the root cause of things like atherosclerosis. And cholesterol simply as the benign agent the body uses in attempting to heal the damage. Matter of fact, there are many Big Giant Heads who believe the therapeutic property of statins is its anti-inflammatory properties, rather than lipid regulation.
I think good will come from this "pseudo-science, fringe research" not too far down the track.
But of course we cannot rely on media such as television for our education. They are charlatans out to make a buck as well, are they not ?

[neilmny]

Wayno, Can you define "the lengthiest period of time" and can you get a list of "serious health issues" from him or her?
I'm not interested in a Google search, just specific findings from an "expert".
Don't get me wrong I believe in natural "medicine" but in this situation it's the guy who saved my life who has my
full attention.

I just had a look at an article by Gary Moller..........where is the science in this statement "please read this article about the dangers of statin drugs by Sally Fallon and Mary Eng. Sally recently toured New Zealand to promote the merits of traditional foods. She happens to be married to a New Zealander (Which means she's OK)."

Science ????

[wayno]

gary has the specifics, not me,, i've known gary a long time, i find him to be a professional. he's used his own methodology on himself to ensure at 60 he's one of the top competitive mountain bikers in nz, regularly finishes near the tip in overall standings in events. he's doing something right.. if he can keep hiself in that shape at 60 i'll believe what he says over scientists who are far less likely to have his robust health, and he hasnt always been that healthy, he had to bring himself back from severe chronic fatigue from over training as a young adult....
science isnt the last work and b all and end all of everything. i've had chronic fatigue and numerous doctors were of zero use to me, gary was the guy who had all the answers and sorted me out when dozens of other health professionals failed. , what he does works science or not.

[icefest]

or it could be the best thing to happen to the people on statins... the show not over till the fat lady sings

Well I have met someone who only talked in a singing voice after having a stroke...

[MrWalker]

The cardiologists and other heart experts complaining that the Catalyst program might cost lives present figures that show that about 1 extra person in 100 might die by stopping taking statins. This figure is consistent with many large scale surveys.

But what the heart experts always ignore are the side effects of these drugs that affect about 10% of those taking them, in many cases affecting them so badly that life is simply not worth living. Common side effects are joint and muscle aches that make it almost impossible to get around, confusion and memory problems that are similar to dementia, except that people do recover when they stop taking statins.

I advise anyone taking statins to look up the side effects, and if affected by them, decide whether they are worth putting up with, for a 1% chance of living a bit longer.

[wayno]

statins inhibit production of the enzyme CoQ10....
the amount of CoQ10 can actually predict your mortality to a certain extent. once it drops below a certain level your ability to maintain your health enough to stay alive is seriously compromised, CoQ10 is crucial to various metabolic functions including energy production....
personally i wouldnt be surprised if statins were akin to slow suicide in the long run.... i'd take the risk of dying by other means than messing with my metabolism with statins. my dad was a strong fit man till he was put on them. he went downhill rapidly in a few years. can't help but think statins accelerated his demise

[photohiker]

But what the heart experts always ignore are the side effects of these drugs

Source for this claim please.

I advise anyone taking statins to look up the side effects, and if affected by them, decide whether they are worth putting up with, for a 1% chance of living a bit longer.

Risky business offering medical advice in public. If people have concerns about their medications, they should discuss it with their doctors.

Wayno, if your dad was a "strong fit man", he didn't need any medication, so why was it prescribed?

[GPSGuided]

personally i wouldnt be surprised if statins were akin to slow suicide in the long run.... i'd take the risk of dying by other means than messing with my metabolism with statins. my dad was a strong fit man till he was put on them. he went downhill rapidly in a few years. can't help but think statins accelerated his demise

Life is a terminal disease...

Seriously! By that logic, I would say that eating calories and proteins is akin to slow suicide in the long run. Some short term benefits but it allows you body cells to move closer to their limits in mitotic divisions, moving closer to their termination.

Taking the example of your dad is highly subjective and without scientific merit. Did you know that anti-cancer drugs kills? All those who died of cancer have all been treated by them. They were fine but went down hill rapidly after been on them, can't help but think anti-cancer drugs accelerated their demise.

[wayno]

if we couldnt post without scientific support for what we were saying, how many posts would there be on this forum? what would there be to read? sitting there repeatedly asking for scientific proof is just like telling people dont post the vast majority of your posts.... i post gear reviews, they arent scientific reviews they are practical subjective opinion , does that make them invalid?

[photohiker]

It doesn't make them invalid wayno.

I think GPSG's point is that countering a science based medical opinion with a non scientific subjective opinion doesn't really stack up. It might (or might not) stack up in one case like your dad's, but that doesn't mean that your dad's case applies to everyone else who has ever been prescribed that medication.

[wayno]

asking for scientific proof is becoming a broken record in the forums. i think people get the picture people would prefer scientific proof, well you're not going to get it all the time when you want it, thats life in the forums

[photohiker]

Or on Catalyst, apparently.

[GPSGuided]

Human history has demonstrated that the society advances when the it and leaders become more objective in their decision making process, backwards when not. A basic understanding and practice of good scientific method is not that hard to adhere.

[wayno]

Human history has demonstrated that the society advances when the it and leaders become more objective in their decision making process, backwards when not. A basic understanding and practice of good scientific method is not that hard to adhere.

please provide scientific proof

[GPSGuided]

please provide scientific proof

Rise and fall of empires.
Dark ages.
Industrial evolution.
Post war technology development.

[neilmny]

Here's one for you.
More than 50% of people who die of heart disease have had a previous heart event and have failed to maintain their medication as directed and/or
have also failed to alter the lifestyle and diet as advised.

I understand peoples thought's on statins for people that are not high risk.. to me high risk is CAD and/or previous AMI. I am high risk and nothing will change the fact that I trust my medical people.
They took a clapped out bag of crap and turned it back into a human being for which I am eternally grateful. Having said that I take on board some serious side effect symptoms to be on the watch for.
It should also be noted that all heart patients should have been issued with detailed information on what to take when and what to watch for in terms of adverse reactions.

FWIW I strongly disagree with medication such as flu vaccines for people who are at minimal risk or perfectly healthy....in other words they might get the flu and get layed up for a while.
My old employer used to offer these free.....most who took them up got the flu......but they always said "it could have been worse without the flu vaccine"!
While I'm on the soap box........The use of hand cleansers and all that guff is rediculous in my opinion, while we need to keep ourselves clean we also need some bugs to actually build our immune system.

Wayno you do come across as advising people from time to time, it may not be intended, I dare say you probably just have a strong belief in what you write but it does come across as advise.
Not a criticism just a friendly observation.

[wayno]

if people want to think well science and my dr say the answer to X is Y, and thats the only answer then that is there choice...
but those who might want to consider alternatives that is their choice too. inform yourselves, make your own choice...
i'd quite likely be a worthless bag of nothing still if i didnt question what i was told by the medical establishment when i had chronic fatigue...

[GPSGuided]

People are entitled to choose, even death if that's what they want (jump off a cliff). But when debating or in public announcement to advise, there better be objective factual basis and be properly qualified. Problem with the pseudoscience messenger is their lack of objective facts and qualifiers. That's all.

[LandSailor]

If pointing out that someone has bias is ad hominem, then there are no standards to the discussion.

Ok perhaps "ad hominem" is a bit strong but the point I was making is nobody seems to have paid much attention to what they have to say.
Just immediately dismissed as "charlatans" because they have a web site or sell a book. No further analysis required.
Very much a case of shoot the messenger and ignore the message.

Here's some science that everyone seems to be craving...

Lowering cholesterol concentrations and mortality: a quantitative review of primary prevention trials.
Description: 24,847 male patients studied for impact of cholesterol reduction
Conclusion: The failure of cholesterol lowering to affect overall survival justifies a more cautious appraisal of the probable benefits of reducing cholesterol concentrations in the general population.

The Nurse's Health Study
Description: Very famous study where approximately 200,000 nurses were followed up over multiple decades to get statistics on lifestyle factors affecting illness.
Conclusion: With regard to coronary heart disease and diet, Mediterranean-type diet reduces risk of incident CHD and stroke. Fish intake reduces risk of stroke. Nut and wholegrain consumption reduces risk of CHD. Refined carbohydrates and trans fats increase risk.
Note: based on their findings standard recommended dietary guidelines (low fat, high carbohydrate) actually increases risk.
In the list of significant findings nowhere is cholesterol mentioned as a factor for any illness whatsoever (really).
It beggars belief that cholesterol would not have been monitored as part of the research.

Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome.
Description: Attempt to measure bias by examing pro and anti-cholesterol citations in experiments.
Conclusion:Lowering serum cholesterol concentrations does not reduce mortality and is unlikely to prevent coronary heart disease. Claims of the opposite are based on preferential citation of supportive trials.

Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease
Description: Randomized controlled trial of 48 835 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years, of diverse backgrounds and ethnicities, who participated in the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial.
Conclusion:Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk.

LDL Cholesterol:Bad Cholesterol, or Bad Science?
Description: Review of current cholesterol science
Conclusion: The concept that LDL is bad cholesterol is a simplistic and scientifically untenable hypothesis. The inordinate focus on cholesterol, a perfectly natural substance that performs many crucial functions in the body, has taken and continues to take valuable resources and attention away from factors more closely related to heart disease. Independent-thinking practitioners must look at the readily available evidence for themselves, instead of relying on the continual stream of anticholesterol propaganda emanating from health authorities. By doing so, they will quickly realize that the LDL hypothesis is aggressively promoted for reasons other than public health.

BusinessWeek: Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?
Conclusion: Based on tests performed by pharma companies themselves patients without prior heart disease that only 1 in 100 is likely to benefit from taking statins for years.

Some of the above studies were quoted directly or indirectly by the greedy "charlatans" interviewed on Catalyst so it must all be wacko "pseudo-science" I suppose.
They also made an interesting observation about the US panel that decided on healthy limits for cholesterol (beyond which statins should be prescribed).
Apparently something like 90% of the members of that panel had financial links to big pharma (no I dont have a source for this but will post if I find it).
The level at which cholesterol is deemed unhealthy, is literally a billion dollar decision for these drug companies. The fact that one person on these panel had links to big pharma would be a cause for major concern I would have thought.

As far as I can tell, the consensus seems to be that statins are only of benefit to middle-aged men who have suffered at least one heart-attack.
Limiting drugs sales to such a small subset of the market would obviously be an undesirable outcome for pharma companies.
Perhaps they did something like paying a few million dollars to key stakeholders to go on speaking tours to ensure they got the result they wanted.

Of course the above articles/research is by no means conclusive. You can pretty much cherry-pick research to support whatever conclusion you want.
However I would say that rejecting the cholesterol hypothesis is more than just a fringe theory.
Seems to be a ground swell of people questioning the whole idea.

[neilmny]

but those who might want to consider alternatives that is their choice too. inform yourselves, make your own choice...
i'd quite likely be a worthless bag of nothing still if i didnt question what i was told by the medical establishment when i had chronic fatigue...

I fully understand what your saying Wayno, I had a serious food sensitivity in the 80's, I had migraines overy other day
almost wiped out evry time, was getting to the point where I was thinking death would be a better alternative.
A specialist with a little bit of natural medicne in his soul ( a very rare thing in the 80's), determined I had a food sensitivity, I eliminated that food from my diet and recovered rapidly from that point in time. i owe him too.
Following that recovery I have taken the natural path most of the time but the heart issue I just wasn't game to gamble.

[GPSGuided]

LandSailer: If you carefully read the earlier posts, no one applied the term charlatan to the present situation. The term was part of a list of social interactions where people are mislead from objective scientific facts. So please, quote objectively and don't do what politicians and charlatans do, twist facts.

[photohiker]

LandSailer: If you carefully read the earlier posts, no one applied the term charlatan to the present situation. The term was part of a list of social interactions where people are mislead from objective scientific facts. So please, quote objectively and don't do what politicians and charlatans do, twist facts.

Landsailer took exception (I think, please correct if I am wrong) to me highlighting these individual's websites, books and supplement sales websites, but I don't think my message was ever that they are charlatans. My message was that these people have demonstrable financial and opinion bias and the program could have done better than to select web salespeople to represent the case against managing cholesterol and the use of statins. Well, that and the fact the program also failed to provide balance.

As for not taking notice of what they say, they had a free ride and said plenty in the program. Did you watch it?

[LandSailor]

So I guess we'll completely ignore the main thrust of my previous post and nitpick on semantics?
I think the context in which your "charlatan" statement was made is very relevant.

I have nothing against these people having books and websites. Good luck to them. I do have problems with them being selected as oracles of medical opinion as they are clearly
biased for publicity and income based on that publicity.

It's a sad day for our science education system when adults can't differentiate proper science, pseudo-science, "wacko" ideas and charlatans . Yet again, we always had them throughout human history. Those on the fringes just got smarter in the way they presented their wares, through their education.

Its pretty clear your statement was at least in partial reference PhotoHikers previous post listing the Catalyst interviewees and their websites.
So you clearly were inferring they are charlatans and no, I dont think Im "twisting the facts" at all.

[GPSGuided]

Its pretty clear your statement was at least in partial reference PhotoHikers previous post listing the Catalyst interviewees and their websites.
So you clearly were inferring they are charlatans and no, I dont think Im "twisting the facts" at all.

The quote indicated the spectrum of social cheats. If you felt those people are charlatans, than I am not going to argue against you, assuming that's your instinct. The original post made no specific indication where in that spectrum those people stood. Personally, I'd think they are more pseudoscience spinners.

[LandSailor]

LandSailer: If you carefully read the earlier posts, no one applied the term charlatan to the present situation. The term was part of a list of social interactions where people are mislead from objective scientific facts. So please, quote objectively and don't do what politicians and charlatans do, twist facts.

Landsailer took exception (I think, please correct if I am wrong) to me highlighting these individual's websites, books and supplement sales websites, but I don't think my message was ever that they are charlatans. My message was that these people have demonstrable financial and opinion bias and the program could have done better than to select web salespeople to represent the case against managing cholesterol and the use of statins. Well, that and the fact the program also failed to provide balance.

As for not taking notice of what they say, they had a free ride and said plenty in the program. Did you watch it?

Yes Ive watched both episodes, some of the extended interviews on their website, and have read, and am reading some of their books.
Plus a whole lot of youtube videos etc on this subject as well. Im also undertaking some of their recommendations with own diet with great success (unprecedented results really).

I guess Im reacting to what seemed like the simple outright dismissal of their ideas with no obvious attempt to look beyond the fact they have a web site or are selling books.
However having said that, I still agree with your statement that Catalyst was not balanced. They should have given equal time at least some of the people doing the actual science on both sides of the debate.

[GPSGuided]

I don't think my message was ever that they are charlatans. My message was that these people have demonstrable financial and opinion bias and the program could have done better than to select web salespeople to represent the case against managing cholesterol and the use of statins. Well, that and the fact the program also failed to provide balance.

As for not taking notice of what they say, they had a free ride and said plenty in the program. Did you watch it?

Yes, that's how I interpreted your earlier post/s. Yes, I did watch the two episodes and was utterly disappointed with how low Catalyst has fallen. The style and standard of reporting was more like sensationalistic Today Tonight than an objective and responsible science program.

[LandSailor]

Personally, I'd think they are more pseudoscience spinners.

Not sure of the distinction between charlatans and pseudoscience spinners but happy to use your preferred term.

Gary Taubes was another "pseudo-science spinner" interviewed on Catalyst. He is or was a science writer for the New York Times.
He wrote the seminal article below more than 10 years ago on the topic of fats vs carbohydrates. Its still very relevant today.

Is it all a big fat lie?

For those with an open mind on the subject he has written a few books that are well worth a read. And can we perhaps, give him the benefit of the doubt, assume they are not just full of lies and pseudo-science to sell books.

[GPSGuided]

For those with an open mind on the subject he has written a few books that are well worth a read. And can we perhaps, give him the benefit of the doubt, assume they are not just full of lies and pseudo-science to sell books.

Proper scientists and researchers primarily write for peer reviewed journals, academic review articles and professional reference texts. Those who venture into the popular book list, especially repeatedly, invariably know what spinning is and its value in the commercial space. As for those who specialise in it, say no more.