about cholesterol

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.theomnivore.com/Dr_T_Cowan.html
My theory with statin use is that a lot of people manifest a lot of
different symptoms, that's been my experience with statins. It's a
complicated thing, because people wonder, "how can one drug cause all
those side effects?"

Most drugs are concentrated in order to have a theurapeutic effect. Most
drugs do in fact have side effects and not just statins. Look at blood
pressure medicine and any other drug.

Quoted message said:

I think the answer to that question is that it isn't the actual statins
that cause the side effects. The side effects come about because statins
lower cholesterol, and cholesterol is essentially how we protect
ourselves. Whatever the problem that the body was protecting itself from
with cholesterol, that's the problem that will be unmasked when they
take statin drugs.

That is a theory. Any drug can physiological effects unrelated to what you
want to use it for. There are no magic bullets that can be used narrowly on
only what you want to use for without side effects. If your theory is
correct that cholesterol is protective than people would be worse off with
the meds. They just don't see that. See the study of statins and it's
protective effect from cancer and in Alzeihemers.
Keep in mind that cholesterol is used as a risk predicator of heart disease
and as such is for the young. Older people, cholesterol seems to be a good
predictor of longevity. It depends on the age group and the specific lipid
profile.There are genetic susceptibles to diseases that can be seen
specifically through a lipid profile.

Quoted message said:

For instance, I had a lady, she was one of those people who got amnesia
after taking statins. It was interesting, her story was that she was a
heavy golfer. I don't know if you know anything about playing golf, they
use a lot of pesticides and herbicides on golf courses, they need to in
order to keep them looking like they do.

So she had been doing this for years and she had a cholesterol level of
almost 400. After she started taking statins, her cholesterol dropped
down to the low 200's, because she took a real high dose. She started
getting symptoms which looked like organophosphate poisoning, including
amnesia and neurological problems. My conclusion was, I can't prove it,
but I think she was showing the toxicity of the chemicals and that
before that she was basically protected against that.

I see other people who have neurological problems, a lot of them have
also been exposed to chemicals in their work or elsewhere. The
cholesterol is essentially protecting them. It could be a lot of things
with different people.

Again if you feel a high choleestrol is protective then the logic would be
to develop a drug that will elevate the cholesterol in those with a low
cholesterol and see what happens. There is no contradition in having some
people needing a low cholesterol based on a genetic profile and having those
with a low cholesterol on a drug that rises the cholesterol. Most diseases
if not all are divided into those with low or those with high function. You
have hypothyroid and you have hperthyroid and you don't treat them the same.

Quoted message said:

The other thing is that it [statin use] definitely affects the liver,
that's how it works, it interferes with your liver. That's why I think
it unmasks the toxic exposure that a person is exposed to. That's what I
think. The symptoms can be anything, and it's not directly from the
statins, it's from the effect of the statins, you can't detoxify as
efficiently.

All drugs are detoxified by the liver. Enzyme activation can increase or
decrease drug levels with drug interactions. There are genetic factors
involved with the degree or speed of detoxificaton of drugs. They are coming
up with a genetic test to be able to predict half-life of drugs in these
people.

Quoted message said:

------------------------------------

Sounds quite reasonable, does not it ? 🙂

Mirek

"Robert" <[email hidden]> pí¹e v diskusním pøíspìvku
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think the answer to that question is that it isn't the actual

statins

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that cause the side effects. The side effects come about because

statins

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lower cholesterol, and cholesterol is essentially how we protect
ourselves. Whatever the problem that the body was protecting itself

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with cholesterol, that's the problem that will be unmasked when they
take statin drugs.

That is a theory. Any drug can physiological effects unrelated to what

you

Quoted message said:

want to use it for. There are no magic bullets that can be used

narrowly on

Quoted message said:

only what you want to use for without side effects. If your theory is
correct that cholesterol is protective than people would be worse off

with

First of all, that is not my theory. I just have seen this as nice
hypothesis worth posting.

Quoted message said:

the meds.

And, actually, if there are any benefits of statins, they are pretty
small and possibly unrelated to their cholesterol lowering effects.
There are even studies suggesting that lower they affect TC, the more
effective they are.

Quoted message said:

Keep in mind that cholesterol is used as a risk predicator of heart

disease

Quoted message said:

and as such is for the young.

Keep in mind that predictive power of total cholesterol is rather small,
far less than other factors.

This somewhat interesting hypothesis suggests that elevated cholesterol
is in fact sign of body fighting other condition.

It is just unproven hypothesis, of course, but it could explain some
observation.

Quoted message said:

Again if you feel a high choleestrol is protective then the logic

would be

Quoted message said:

to develop a drug that will elevate the cholesterol in those with a

low

Quoted message said:

cholesterol and see what happens.

Why not? 🙂 But that will hardly happen any time soon due to
anticholesterol propaganda. There would either be no market for such
drug or highly profitable market for statins would crash. No interest of
big pharma.

BTW, do you know that in eighties in Japan dietary guidelines were
actually aimed to raising TC?

Quoted message said:

There is no contradition in having some
people needing a low cholesterol based on a genetic profile and having

those

Quoted message said:

with a low cholesterol on a drug that rises the cholesterol.

This will never happen anytime soon.

Mirek

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

http://www.theomnivore.com/Dr_T_Cowan.html
My theory with statin use is that a lot of people manifest a lot of
different symptoms, that's been my experience with statins. It's a
complicated thing, because people wonder, "how can one drug cause all
those side effects?"

I think the answer to that question is that it isn't the actual statins
that cause the side effects. The side effects come about because statins
lower cholesterol, and cholesterol is essentially how we protect
ourselves. Whatever the problem that the body was protecting itself from
with cholesterol, that's the problem that will be unmasked when they
take statin drugs.

For instance, I had a lady, she was one of those people who got amnesia
after taking statins. It was interesting, her story was that she was a
heavy golfer. I don't know if you know anything about playing golf, they
use a lot of pesticides and herbicides on golf courses, they need to in
order to keep them looking like they do.

So she had been doing this for years and she had a cholesterol level of
almost 400. After she started taking statins, her cholesterol dropped
down to the low 200's, because she took a real high dose. She started
getting symptoms which looked like organophosphate poisoning, including
amnesia and neurological problems. My conclusion was, I can't prove it,
but I think she was showing the toxicity of the chemicals and that
before that she was basically protected against that.

I see other people who have neurological problems, a lot of them have
also been exposed to chemicals in their work or elsewhere. The
cholesterol is essentially protecting them. It could be a lot of things
with different people.

The other thing is that it [statin use] definitely affects the liver,
that's how it works, it interferes with your liver. That's why I think
it unmasks the toxic exposure that a person is exposed to. That's what I
think. The symptoms can be anything, and it's not directly from the
statins, it's from the effect of the statins, you can't detoxify as
efficiently.

------------------------------------

Sounds quite reasonable, does not it ? 🙂

Mirek

Some interesting observations. I have not heard ideas like that
about cholesterol but they seem logical. Cholesterol is a very
important and protective substance and the body does not do things for
no reason. When you try to monkey with it only bad things can happen.

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Robert" <[email hidden]> pí¹e v diskusním pøíspìvku
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think the answer to that question is that it isn't the actual

statins

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that cause the side effects. The side effects come about because

statins

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lower cholesterol, and cholesterol is essentially how we protect
ourselves. Whatever the problem that the body was protecting itself

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with cholesterol, that's the problem that will be unmasked when they
take statin drugs.

That is a theory. Any drug can physiological effects unrelated to what

you

Quoted message said:

want to use it for. There are no magic bullets that can be used

narrowly on

Quoted message said:

only what you want to use for without side effects. If your theory is
correct that cholesterol is protective than people would be worse off

with

First of all, that is not my theory. I just have seen this as nice
hypothesis worth posting.

Quoted message said:

the meds.

And, actually, if there are any benefits of statins, they are pretty
small and possibly unrelated to their cholesterol lowering effects.
There are even studies suggesting that lower they affect TC, the more
effective they are.

There is a working hypothesis that cholesterol may be involved in the
clogging of the artieries and how that happens is still vague. If the
statins work in causing less clogging then that doesn't mean they understand
the complete picture of how it does it or even if it is primary to it or
secondary to it. In other words as you mention that the statins may affect
the problem at a different level unrelated to the cholesterol effects as you
imply. That is how medicine works, a little at a time. Sometimes you take
one step forward and two steps back. Some medications work contrary to
theoretical principles and sometimes they don't work when they theoretically
should. Just because somebody does not know how it works does not mean you
can't use it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Keep in mind that cholesterol is used as a risk predicator of heart

disease

Quoted message said:

and as such is for the young.

Keep in mind that predictive power of total cholesterol is rather small,
far less than other factors.

This somewhat interesting hypothesis suggests that elevated cholesterol
is in fact sign of body fighting other condition.

There are inflammatory markers such as CRP and if cholesterol is involved in
inflammation it does not mean it is good. Allergic reactions is a sign of
the body fighting something unfortunately it is yourself.

Quoted message said:

It is just unproven hypothesis, of course, but it could explain some
observation.

Quoted message said:

Again if you feel a high choleestrol is protective then the logic

would be

Quoted message said:

to develop a drug that will elevate the cholesterol in those with a

low

Quoted message said:

cholesterol and see what happens.

Why not? 🙂 But that will hardly happen any time soon due to
anticholesterol propaganda. There would either be no market for such
drug or highly profitable market for statins would crash. No interest of
big pharma.

No,no, the point is in medicine that there are conditions associated with
too much or too little. You have every endocrine gland associated with over
production or underproduction of hormones and each is treated individually.
The goal of medicine is to intervene in the disease process to promote
health. Low cholesterols have been associated with suicide and decreased
longivity. You do a study to raise their cholesterol and see what happens.
For those with a high cholesterol and young you decrease it to minimize the
heart risk. It is targeted for each high risk group. There is no
contradiction here.

Quoted message said:

BTW, do you know that in eighties in Japan dietary guidelines were
actually aimed to raising TC?

Quoted message said:

There is no contradition in having some
people needing a low cholesterol based on a genetic profile and having

those

Quoted message said:

with a low cholesterol on a drug that rises the cholesterol.

This will never happen anytime soon.

No, it is already happening as Abetalipoproteinemia patients have very low
cholesterol but have severe heart problems. The problem is they lack the
transport protein in carrying cholesterol away.
If you only look at total cholesterol and make generalizations then you can
get into problems.

Quoted message said:

Mirek

Quoted message said:

There is a working hypothesis that cholesterol may be involved in the
clogging of the artieries and how that happens is still vague. If the
statins work in causing less clogging then that doesn't mean they

understand

Quoted message said:

the complete picture of how it does it or even if it is primary to it

or

Quoted message said:

secondary to it. In other words as you mention that the statins may

affect

Quoted message said:

the problem at a different level unrelated to the cholesterol effects

as you

Quoted message said:

imply.

I do agree with this. But, then, why are there LDL lowering guidelines?
Especially when it becomes clear that lowering of LDL is not why statins
work.

Also, aspirin (or magnesium, choose what really works) are as effective
as statins, just much much cheaper.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This somewhat interesting hypothesis suggests that elevated

cholesterol

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is in fact sign of body fighting other condition.

There are inflammatory markers such as CRP and if cholesterol is

involved in

Quoted message said:

inflammation it does not mean it is good.

Even if it fights with inflamation?

Mirek

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is a working hypothesis that cholesterol may be involved in the
clogging of the artieries and how that happens is still vague. If the
statins work in causing less clogging then that doesn't mean they

understand

Quoted message said:

the complete picture of how it does it or even if it is primary to it

or

Quoted message said:

secondary to it. In other words as you mention that the statins may

affect

Quoted message said:

the problem at a different level unrelated to the cholesterol effects

as you

Quoted message said:

imply.

I do agree with this. But, then, why are there LDL lowering guidelines?
Especially when it becomes clear that lowering of LDL is not why statins
work.

LDL is a marker for dyslipidemias. The goal is to lower LDL. Keep in mind
that statins do not work all the time. There are statin unresponsive "LDL"
people. Those people with genetically high Lp(a) are treated with Niacin,
fenofibrate, estrogen, Raloxifene or and ASA. These people get heart attacks
at a young age and don't necessarily have a high LDL. It is only through
specific testing that most of the LDL is comprised of Lp(a).

Quoted message said:

Also, aspirin (or magnesium, choose what really works) are as effective
as statins, just much much cheaper.

Statins are not ideal but only a transient med until something better shows
up. It might be anti inflammatories or even cytokine manipulation. The
cholesterol is occluding the lumen as a result of repair and inflammation.
It's the Band Aid that gets so big it starts to clog the artery. The initial
lession causing the damage is the ultimate target for intervention. Free
radical damage? Leading to cholesterol repair and more damage leading to
more and more repair.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This somewhat interesting hypothesis suggests that elevated

cholesterol

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is in fact sign of body fighting other condition.

There are inflammatory markers such as CRP and if cholesterol is

involved in

Quoted message said:

inflammation it does not mean it is good.

Even if it fights with inflamation?

If inflammation is not limited it can cause more damage to the surrounding
tissue. Cell activation results in highly toxic chemicals that can really
kill bacteria and also damage the tissue. The repair of the artery results
in the narrowing of the lumen.

Quoted message said:

Mirek

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

There is a working hypothesis that cholesterol may be involved in the
clogging of the artieries and how that happens is still vague.

The mechanism is known, the relative contribution of cholesterol isn't.
Oxidised cholesterol leads to oxidised LDL which leads to plaques in the
arteries. If you feed rabbits (which don't get atherosclerosis normally)
oxidised cholesterol they get fatty streaks in their arteries. If you
feed them pure, undamaged cholesterol they don't. Oxidation of lipids
and then the proteins that transport them is a requirement for fatty
artery disease.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the
statins work in causing less clogging then that doesn't mean they

understand

Quoted message said:

the complete picture of how it does it or even if it is primary to it

or

Quoted message said:

secondary to it. In other words as you mention that the statins may

affect

Quoted message said:

the problem at a different level unrelated to the cholesterol effects

as you

Quoted message said:

imply.

I do agree with this. But, then, why are there LDL lowering guidelines?

LDL is the lipoprotein that lodges in the arteries; no LDL, no plaques.
It is more important to lower LDL than simply cholesterol, because it is
the LDL protein component that causes the LDL to stick to the artery.
LDL is higher in cholesterol simply because by the time VLDL has become
IDL and IDL has become LDL most of the other lipids have been deposited
in the adipose tissue. The liver still removes most of the LDL, but
crucially LDL can hang around in the blood for days, whereas other
lipoproteins are a matter of minutes or hours. The longer LDL is free in
the blood the more chance it will end up in an artery.

Quoted message said:

Especially when it becomes clear that lowering of LDL is not why statins
work.

Statins seem to have a secondary effect of increasing the LDL receptors
displayed by the liver. This means more of the LDL ends up back in the
liver, so less is available to enter the artery wall.

Quoted message said:

Also, aspirin (or magnesium, choose what really works) are as effective
as statins, just much much cheaper.

Aspirin works after the damage has begun and the artery is inflammed.
LDL *starts* the process off when it becomes oxidised. Both approaches
limit the progress of heart disease, but in different ways.

MattLB