Zocor causing eye problems

"NoSpamo~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have been taking Zocor since it came out. I now have
severe muscle pain with contractions. Foot pain so bad I
can't sleep. Eye problems that cause blurry vision and no
depth perception. I stopped it for nearly two weeks and
the problems got much better. My doctor said I had to go
back on it as those with Diabetes had to be on it or they
would die soon of cardio disease. So I am back on it and
the pain is intense. The doctor said the Zocor would cure
the leg and foot pains but it has not. I also have
generalized weakness and fatigue. Matt

You left out a whole lot of information, including what dose
you are on, have you tried other statins to replace Zocor,
what your cholesterol is, whether blood tests were done to
check for muscle problems, etc,

But one thing to work on is diet and exercise. They really
really work to help protect your heart and lower blood sugar
with type 2 diabetes.

Bill

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I have been taking Zocor since it came out. I now have
severe muscle pain with contractions. Foot pain so bad I
can't sleep. Eye problems that cause blurry vision and no
depth perception. I stopped it for nearly two weeks and
the problems got much better. My doctor said I had to go
back on it as those with Diabetes had to be on it or they
would die soon of cardio disease. So I am back on it and
the pain is intense. The doctor said the Zocor would cure
the leg and foot pains but it has not. I also have
generalized weakness and fatigue. Matt

Matt I suggest you contact Dr. Golomb's office about your
difficulties with Zocor. The phone number is here. If you
are unable to visit, she will talk with your physician. She
did that for me. Her office will provide you with
information about statin side effects. If you are not able
to speak with her directly at first, ask for John.
medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗

I have had all the symptoms you talk about and more. All my
symptoms were increased/returned on a short trial of Zocor
Jan-Apr 2003, the last time I used a statin. I have
permanent documented vision damage among other seemingly
permanent damage.

Statin caused muscle damage does not always show with
elevated CK levels. You may need to have a muscle biopsy to
determine that. Dr. Golomb's office can probably give you
more information on that.

I do not know about exercise, diet and diabetes, but I can
tell you that diet and exercise affected my total
cholesterol less than 1/3 and my ldl even less than that.

If you wish contact me at [email hidden].
Remove the Xs.

B'adant

Quoted message said:

You left out a whole lot of information, including what
dose you are on,

10mg of Zocor in the eve and Zetia.

have

Quoted message said:

you tried other statins to replace Zocor,

I have been on all the cholesterol lowering drugs including
Lopid and all of the early drugs plus Lipitor, Crestor just
about all of them what your cholesterol is, My cholesterol
is 168 and tri's are 328 whether

Quoted message said:

blood tests were done to check for muscle problems, etc,

CPK's plus all the other auto immunine tests have been done.
We have even done x-rays with nothing noted other than early
arthritis.

Quoted message said:

But one thing to work on is diet and exercise. They really
really work to help protect your heart and lower blood
sugar with type 2 diabetes.

I have been Diabetic for 30 years and take Insulin for
control and have never done anything other than diet. I AM
the one person is the world who can eat just one potato
chip. I am almost fanatic with my diet as I know how
horrible one feels off the diet. Matt

Quoted message said:

Bill

Matt,

Please do have your muscles checked, by Dr. Golomb if
possible, to see if the pain is due to muscle damage. Until
then, and after that if there is cell damage from the
statins, DO NOT EXERCISE.

Well-meaning people confuse generally good advice with the
potentially life-threatening effects of over-working statin-
damaged muscles. Your muscles use ATP, and have
approximately 30 minutes of energy stored. If you have the
statin muscle damage, and this can be determined by muscle
biopsy, the damage is to the mitochondria in the cell walls.
This damage will prevent the ability of the cell to normally
exchange oxygen and electrons. The net result is that, once
the ATP is used up, the cell cannot perform the necessary
exchanges that permit additional energy. Instead, the cell
can be damaged to the point of 'apoptosis' - or cell death.
Yes, the fatigue and generalized weakness go with this. Many
people with the symptoms you listed also find they have
problems with short-term memory and bouts of amnesia. They
also develop a speech problem, aphasia, whereby they have
diffculty thinking of specific words they want to use.

If enough of the cells die, the results include a range from
muscle pain to gout to gall bladder surgery, to
rhabdomyolysis (which in the extreme can lead to liver and
kidney failure, then death).

Your pain may simply be from statin-induced peripheral
neuropathy. If you are over 50 and on statins for 2 or more
years, you are 26 times more likely than the normal
population to develop peripheral neuropathy. In addition,
diabetics have a tendency to develop peripheral neuropathy,
so your chances may be higher. In that case the exercise
would be uncomfortable, but not as dangerous as if you have
the statin-induced mitochondrial damage.

You are not alone in your pain. Please check the Smart Money
Magazine article for my husband's story, and many others'. A
reprint is available at:
rxlist.comlipitor.plOpen ↗

There is a tremendous amount of information on Statin
Adverse Effects on the Lipitor board at
forum.ditonline.comviewboard.phpOpen ↗ See also
rxlist.comlipitor.plOpen ↗

Best wishes in your recovery. And please DO NOT PERMIT
ANYONE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT ANY OF THIS IS YOUR FAULT. The
game of blame the patient is a sick and perverted game.
Insist your doctor work to get you better, and do not permit
yourself to be put off, told you are imagining or
exaggerating anything. Be prepared for a long recovery,
likely at least as long as the time you were on the statins.

Best of luck, Sharon

"NoSpamo~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have been taking Zocor since it came out. I now have
severe muscle pain with contractions. Foot pain so bad I
can't sleep. Eye problems that cause blurry vision and no
depth perception. I stopped it for nearly two weeks and
the problems got much better. My doctor said I had to go
back on it as those with Diabetes had to be on it or they
would die soon of cardio disease. So I am back on it and
the pain is intense. The doctor said the Zocor would cure
the leg and foot pains but it has not. I also have
generalized weakness and fatigue. Matt

Thank you for sharing your experience. It would seem I have
been on every statin and other cholesterol lowering drug
since they came out. My Cholesterol is 168 and tri's around
260+. My mother had her cholesterol checked when they
started doing monitoring. Her were always around 300. No
diet, no exercise made any difference. She refused
medication as she perceived her diet to be nearly perfect
and would not take them. She lived to be 94 with no drugs
other that Allopurinol and an occasional Aspirin. Matt

Zee said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I have been taking Zocor since it came out. I now have
severe muscle pain with contractions. Foot pain so bad I
can't sleep. Eye problems that cause blurry vision and no
depth perception. I stopped it for nearly two weeks and
the problems got much better. My doctor said I had to go
back on it as those with Diabetes had to be on it or they
would die soon of cardio disease. So I am back on it and
the pain is intense. The doctor said the Zocor would cure
the leg and foot pains but it has not. I also have
generalized weakness and fatigue. Matt

Matt I suggest you contact Dr. Golomb's office about your
difficulties with Zocor. The phone number is here. If you
are unable to visit, she will talk with your physician.
She did that for me. Her office will provide you with
information about statin side effects. If you are not able
to speak with her directly at first, ask for John.
medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗

I have had all the symptoms you talk about and more. All
my symptoms were increased/returned on a short trial of
Zocor Jan-Apr 2003, the last time I used a statin. I have
permanent documented vision damage among other seemingly
permanent damage.

Statin caused muscle damage does not always show with
elevated CK levels. You may need to have a muscle biopsy
to determine that. Dr. Golomb's office can probably give
you more information on that.

I do not know about exercise, diet and diabetes, but I can
tell you that diet and exercise affected my total
cholesterol less than 1/3 and my ldl even less than that.

If you wish contact me at [email hidden].
Remove the Xs.

B'adant

"NoSpamo~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You left out a whole lot of information, including what
dose you are on,

10mg of Zocor in the eve and Zetia.

have

Quoted message said:

you tried other statins to replace Zocor,

I have been on all the cholesterol lowering drugs
including Lopid and all of the early drugs plus Lipitor,
Crestor just about all of them what your cholesterol is,
My cholesterol is 168 and tri's are 328 whether

Quoted message said:

blood tests were done to check for muscle problems, etc,

CPK's plus all the other auto immunine tests have been
done. We have even done x-rays with nothing noted other
than early arthritis.

Quoted message said:

But one thing to work on is diet and exercise. They
really really work to

help

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

protect your heart and lower blood sugar with type 2
diabetes.

I have been Diabetic for 30 years and take Insulin for
control and have never done anything other than diet. I AM
the one person is the world who can eat just one potato
chip. I am almost fanatic with my diet as I know how
horrible one feels off the diet. Matt

Quoted message said:

Bill

Were you ever on Lopid and a statin at the same time? That
can be a bad combination? Grapefruit juice and/or Niacin in
combination with Zocor can also be the source of problems.

I think exercise can help a lot. It really did for me. I
started out in a cardiac rehab program and then moved on to
a gym. My blood sugars drop way down after going to the gym.

You might consider getting a second opinion from another Dr.
Or experimenting for a couple of weeks, with your Drs.
agreement, on 5 mg - which is below the starting dose.

I assume the reason you switched from other statins is
because you had similar reactions. Zetia could also be a
contributor to your problems.

Just a few possibilities.

Bill - not a Dr.

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Thank you for sharing your experience. It would seem I
have been on every statin and other cholesterol lowering
drug since they came out. My Cholesterol is 168 and tri's
around 260+. My mother had her cholesterol checked when
they started doing monitoring. Her were always around 300.
No diet, no exercise made any difference. She refused
medication as she perceived her diet to be nearly perfect
and would not take them. She lived to be 94 with no drugs
other that Allopurinol and an occasional Aspirin. Matt

Zee said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message new-
s:<[email hidden].-
net>...

Quoted message said:

I have been taking Zocor since it came out. I now have
severe muscle pain with contractions. Foot pain so bad I
can't sleep. Eye problems that cause blurry vision and
no depth perception. I stopped it for nearly two weeks
and the problems got much better. My doctor said I had
to go back on it as those with Diabetes had to be on it
or they would die soon of cardio disease. So I am back
on it and the pain is intense. The doctor said the Zocor
would cure the leg and foot pains but it has not. I also
have generalized weakness and fatigue. Matt

Matt I suggest you contact Dr. Golomb's office about
your difficulties with Zocor. The phone number is here.
If you are unable to visit, she will talk with your
physician. She did that for me. Her office will provide
you with information about statin side effects. If you
are not able to speak with her directly at first, ask
for John. medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗

I have had all the symptoms you talk about and more. All
my symptoms were increased/returned on a short trial of
Zocor Jan-Apr 2003, the last time I used a statin. I
have permanent documented vision damage among other
seemingly permanent damage.

Statin caused muscle damage does not always show with
elevated CK levels. You may need to have a muscle biopsy
to determine that. Dr. Golomb's office can probably give
you more information on that.

I do not know about exercise, diet and diabetes, but
I can tell you that diet and exercise affected my
total cholesterol less than 1/3 and my ldl even less
than that.

If you wish contact me at [email hidden]. Remove
the Xs.

B'adant

Total cholesterol at end of 6 months long physical rehab
ending 1997, 378; at which point I was started on statins,
to include pravastatin, atorvastatin, cerivastatin and
simvastatin.

Total cholesterol as of Oct 3, 2003; 463--no medication. I
include supplements in that category.

The cholesterol numbers are as near as I can figure using
the conversion of 39.97 times.

I have no heart disease, below-to-normal blood pressure, and
all the damage caused by statins which I have documented
here. I have never used HRT, which at one time was touted to
protect from cholesterol damage, and I am 61.

At the time I was put on statins, at the end of the rehab, I
was swimming 25 lengths of an Olympic length pool, "cross
country skiing" 10 widths with pool weights and float belt,
gym 45 minutes free weights, 5 mile run (last race 38
minutes) all 4 times a week; and 45 minutes hill ramble/hike
(typically 8 miles) once a week, and 10-15 mile cross
country hike once or twice a month.

I eat a whole food, omnivore diet weighted to chocolate.

And I am putting this here on the record for anyone who
thinks they have to take a toxic drug, lower cholesterol and
get miserable in order to live. You don't

B'adant

Okay but what do you take to lower your cholesterol. The
exercise is too much for me.

[email hidden] (Zee) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Thank you for sharing your experience. It would seem I
have been on every statin and other cholesterol lowering
drug since they came out. My Cholesterol is 168 and
tri's around 260+. My mother had her cholesterol checked
when they started doing monitoring. Her were always
around 300. No diet, no exercise made any difference.
She refused medication as she perceived her diet to be
nearly perfect and would not take them. She lived to be
94 with no drugs other that Allopurinol and an
occasional Aspirin. Matt

Zee said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message ne-
ws:<[email hidden]-
k.net>...

>I have been taking Zocor since it came out. I now have
>severe muscle pain with contractions. Foot pain so bad
>I can't sleep. Eye problems that cause blurry vision
>and no depth perception. I stopped it for nearly two
>weeks and the problems got much better. My doctor said
>I had to go back on it as those with Diabetes had to
>be on it or they would die soon of cardio disease. So
>I am back on it and the pain is intense. The doctor
>said the Zocor would cure the leg and foot pains but
>it has not. I also have generalized weakness and
>fatigue. Matt

Matt I suggest you contact Dr. Golomb's office about
your difficulties with Zocor. The phone number is
here. If you are unable to visit, she will talk with
your physician. She did that for me. Her office will
provide you with information about statin side
effects. If you are not able to speak with her
directly at first, ask for John.
medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗

I have had all the symptoms you talk about and more.
All my symptoms were increased/returned on a short
trial of Zocor Jan-Apr 2003, the last time I used a
statin. I have permanent documented vision damage
among other seemingly permanent damage.

Statin caused muscle damage does not always show with
elevated CK levels. You may need to have a muscle
biopsy to determine that. Dr. Golomb's office can
probably give you more information on that.

I do not know about exercise, diet and diabetes, but I
can tell you that diet and exercise affected my total
cholesterol less than 1/3 and my ldl even less than
that.

If you wish contact me at [email hidden].
Remove the Xs.

B'adant

Total cholesterol at end of 6 months long physical rehab
ending 1997, 378; at which point I was started on statins,
to include pravastatin, atorvastatin, cerivastatin and
simvastatin.

Total cholesterol as of Oct 3, 2003; 463--no medication. I
include supplements in that category.

The cholesterol numbers are as near as I can figure using
the conversion of 39.97 times.

I have no heart disease, below-to-normal blood pressure,
and all the damage caused by statins which I have
documented here. I have never used HRT, which at one
time was touted to protect from cholesterol damage, and
I am 61.

At the time I was put on statins, at the end of the rehab,
I was swimming 25 lengths of an Olympic length pool,
"cross country skiing" 10 widths with pool weights and
float belt, gym 45 minutes free weights, 5 mile run (last
race 38 minutes) all 4 times a week; and 45 minutes hill
ramble/hike (typically 8 miles) once a week, and 10-15
mile cross country hike once or twice a month.

I eat a whole food, omnivore diet weighted to chocolate.

And I am putting this here on the record for anyone who
thinks they have to take a toxic drug, lower cholesterol
and get miserable in order to live. You don't

B'adant

To clarify, and avoid any further damage to anyone who may
already have statin damage, I do not suggest one attempt
the exercise regime I undertook PRIOR to starring statin
therapy (wow! that one's better than jumbo shrimp...where
was I...)....

My point was: that person is who I was before I started
statins. Statins dropped me to my knees. So any theory about
not exercising and eating properly and just hucking pills
into my gob rather than taking responsibility is akin to a
cold flacid jackfish.

But this post is about Matt. Get thee to a physician me
boyo! One named Beatrice.

B'adant

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Okay but what do you take to lower your cholesterol. The
exercise is too much for me.

Matt said: what do you take to lower your cholesterol

Nothing. I don't worry about my cholesterol. It's all hype,
benefiting no one but drug companies. Our bodies and our
brains need cholesterol. Some people just normally have high
cholesterol.

See Dr. Golomb first, then see a physical therapist who can
get you going, from where you are now. Ask for a program of
water therapy. Find a pool that is slightly warmer than
normal. Don't do it yourself, because you will need a very
mild, and personalized program, directed by someone with
education in working with paraplegics. Really.

Does lowered cholesterol save lives? Over 50 per cent of
those who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol.

Do a search in this newsgroup for posts made by Al. Lohse.
Read the discussions about cholesterol at www.thincs.org.

What you will find is another point of view. One to be
weighed carefully. I have done so, disagree with much, agree
with much, and found my own way, which does not include
lowering my cholesterol.

It's futile anyway. Stringent diet and punishing exercise:
378. Pass the chocolate: 463. Obviously, my body is trying
to tell me something.

And Matt, the most important thing to consider is this. With
that cholesterol level I have no heart disease. Obviously,
high cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease.

Just possibly, stress, attitude and inflammation are.
Read...and make your own decisons. I have.

ravnskov.nucholesterol.htmOpen ↗ www.thincs.org.

ti.ubc.caletter49.htmOpen ↗
ti.ubc.caletter48.htmOpen ↗ www.nofreelunch.org
www.publiccitizen.org www.redflagsweekly.com
www.healthyskepticism.org

B'adant

This input on Zocor and other Statins is overwhelming. I
should have done my own study prior to posting. I think I
will just stop the Zocor tonight. I have friends who
developed similar problems and they stopped all Statins.
Here is the funny part. They started of something called
Pliconisol (?) something like that and red yeast. My info on
red yeast is that is contains an unrefined form of a statin
and no certain amount. Guess what! Perfect cholesterol, ldl
and hdl with no problems. How about the placebo affect? Matt

Zee said:

[email hidden] (Zee) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Thank you for sharing your experience. It would seem I
have been on every statin and other cholesterol lowering
drug since they came out. My Cholesterol is 168 and tri's
around 260+. My mother had her cholesterol checked when
they started doing monitoring. Her were always around
300. No diet, no exercise made any difference. She
refused medication as she perceived her diet to be nearly
perfect and would not take them. She lived to be 94 with
no drugs other that Allopurinol and an occasional
Aspirin. Matt

Zee wrote:

>NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message new-
>s:<[email hidden].-
>net>...
>
>
>>I have been taking Zocor since it came out. I now have
>>severe muscle pain with contractions. Foot pain so bad
>>I can't sleep. Eye problems that cause blurry vision
>>and no depth perception. I stopped it for nearly two
>>weeks and the problems got much better. My doctor said
>>I had to go back on it as those with Diabetes had to be
>>on it or they would die soon of cardio disease. So I am
>>back on it and the pain is intense. The doctor said the
>>Zocor would cure the leg and foot pains but it has not.
>>I also have generalized weakness and fatigue. Matt
>
>
>Matt I suggest you contact Dr. Golomb's office about
>your difficulties with Zocor. The phone number is here.
>If you are unable to visit, she will talk with your
>physician. She did that for me. Her office will provide
>you with information about statin side effects. If you
>are not able to speak with her directly at first, ask
>for John. medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗
>
>I have had all the symptoms you talk about and more. All
>my symptoms were increased/returned on a short trial of
>Zocor Jan-Apr 2003, the last time I used a statin. I
>have permanent documented vision damage among other
>seemingly permanent damage.
>
>Statin caused muscle damage does not always show with
>elevated CK levels. You may need to have a muscle biopsy
>to determine that. Dr. Golomb's office can probably give
>you more information on that.
>
>I do not know about exercise, diet and diabetes, but
>I can tell you that diet and exercise affected my
>total cholesterol less than 1/3 and my ldl even less
>than that.
>
>If you wish contact me at [email hidden]. Remove
>the Xs.
>
>B'adant

Total cholesterol at end of 6 months long physical rehab
ending 1997, 378; at which point I was started on statins,
to include pravastatin, atorvastatin, cerivastatin and
simvastatin.

Total cholesterol as of Oct 3, 2003; 463--no medication. I
include supplements in that category.

The cholesterol numbers are as near as I can figure using
the conversion of 39.97 times.

I have no heart disease, below-to-normal blood pressure,
and all the damage caused by statins which I have
documented here. I have never used HRT, which at one
time was touted to protect from cholesterol damage, and
I am 61.

At the time I was put on statins, at the end of the rehab,
I was swimming 25 lengths of an Olympic length pool,
"cross country skiing" 10 widths with pool weights and
float belt, gym 45 minutes free weights, 5 mile run (last
race 38 minutes) all 4 times a week; and 45 minutes hill
ramble/hike (typically 8 miles) once a week, and 10-15
mile cross country hike once or twice a month.

I eat a whole food, omnivore diet weighted to chocolate.

And I am putting this here on the record for anyone who
thinks they have to take a toxic drug, lower cholesterol
and get miserable in order to live. You don't

B'adant

To clarify, and avoid any further damage to anyone who may
already have statin damage, I do not suggest one attempt
the exercise regime I undertook PRIOR to starring statin
therapy (wow! that one's better than jumbo shrimp...where
was I...)....

My point was: that person is who I was before I started
statins. Statins dropped me to my knees. So any theory
about not exercising and eating properly and just hucking
pills into my gob rather than taking responsibility is
akin to a cold flacid jackfish.

But this post is about Matt. Get thee to a physician me
boyo! One named Beatrice.

B'adant

(Zee) said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<g-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Okay but what do you take to lower your cholesterol. The
exercise is too much for me.

Matt said: what do you take to lower your cholesterol

Nothing. I don't worry about my cholesterol. It's all hype,
benefiting no one but drug companies. Our bodies and our
brains need cholesterol. Some people just normally have
high cholesterol.

See Dr. Golomb first, then see a physical therapist who can
get you going, from where you are now. Ask for a program of
water therapy. Find a pool that is slightly warmer than
normal. Don't do it yourself, because you will need a very
mild, and personalized program, directed by someone with
education in working with paraplegics. Really.

Does lowered cholesterol save lives? Over 50 per cent of
those who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol.

Do a search in this newsgroup for posts made by Al. Lohse.
Read the discussions about cholesterol at www.thincs.org.

What you will find is another point of view. One to be
weighed carefully. I have done so, disagree with much,
agree with much, and found my own way, which does not
include lowering my cholesterol.

It's futile anyway. Stringent diet and punishing exercise:
378. Pass the chocolate: 463. Obviously, my body is trying
to tell me something.

And Matt, the most important thing to consider is
this. With that cholesterol level I have no heart
disease. Obviously, high cholesterol is not the cause
of heart disease.

Just possibly, stress, attitude and inflammation are.
Read...and make your own decisons. I have.

ravnskov.nucholesterol.htmOpen ↗ www.thincs.org.

ti.ubc.caletter49.htmOpen ↗
ti.ubc.caletter48.htmOpen ↗ www.nofreelunch.org
www.publiccitizen.org www.redflagsweekly.com
www.healthyskepticism.org

B'adant

Uh, oh. Looks like they've snagged another
unsuspecting victim.

As Badant said in another post:

"And also in my opinion--it's all just opinion. No matter
what sophistry you try to lay on me, it's still just
opinion. Yours. And mine."

Please keep that in mind when reading "medical advice" from
Badant. Personally, I find many of her posts reckless, loose
with the facts and full of scare tactics that could cause
unneccesary panic and/or stress.

(Of course her "opinion" goes against hundreds of published
studies showing the efficacy and benefit of statins.)

L.

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

Quoted message said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]-
nk.net>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Okay but what do you take to lower your cholesterol. The
exercise is too much for me.

Matt said: what do you take to lower your cholesterol

Nothing. I don't worry about my cholesterol. It's all
hype, benefiting no one but drug companies. Our bodies and
our brains need cholesterol. Some people just normally
have high cholesterol.

See Dr. Golomb first, then see a physical therapist who
can get you going, from where you are now. Ask for a
program of water therapy. Find a pool that is slightly
warmer than normal. Don't do it yourself, because you
will need a very mild, and personalized program,
directed by someone with education in working with
paraplegics. Really.

Does lowered cholesterol save lives? Over 50 per cent of
those who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol.

Do a search in this newsgroup for posts made by Al. Lohse.
Read the discussions about cholesterol at www.thincs.org.

What you will find is another point of view. One to be
weighed carefully. I have done so, disagree with much,
agree with much, and found my own way, which does not
include lowering my cholesterol.

It's futile anyway. Stringent diet and punishing exercise:
378. Pass the chocolate: 463. Obviously, my body is trying
to tell me something.

And Matt, the most important thing to consider is this.
With that cholesterol level I have no heart disease.
Obviously, high cholesterol is not the cause of heart
disease.

Just possibly, stress, attitude and inflammation are.
Read...and make your own decisons. I have.

ravnskov.nucholesterol.htmOpen ↗

OK. I'll play. Comments on the key material from the above
link appear in parentheses. Nota bene, there is on such
comment that follows material in the original that is also
contained within parentheses.

From the above link: ***Begin quoted material; see the above
for an important note on my comments being inserted
therein.***

6. The effect of the statins is not due to cholesterol-
lowering:

As mentioned in section 4 cholesterol-lowering by itself
does not prolong your life. In the experiments, that have
shown this fact beyond all doubt, cholesterol-lowering was
performed by diet or by use of various older drugs such as
clofibrate (Atromidin®), gemfibrozil (Lopid®),
cholestyramine (Questran®), colestipol (Lestid®), and
nicotinic acid (Nicangin®). But a new type of cholesterol-
lowering drugs, the so-called statins (for instance Zocord®
and Pravachol®) have been succesful. **For the first time
cholesterol-lowering have shown significant improvement of
mortality, both coronary mortality, stroke mortality and
total mortality. These trials are therefore considered as
strong arguments for the idea, that a high cholesterol is
dangerous.** (Emphasis added by me- and the reader will note
that the rest of what follows is a circular argument
constructed by the good Doctor Ravnskov in order to be able
what he himself has just admitted in the emphasized
sentence.)

Have these trials really demonstrated that raised LDL
cholesterol has importance for coronary heart disease, as
the trial directors concluded in the reports?

There is reason to question that, because some of the
results are not consistent with what we have learned about
cholesterol.

First, the statins were effective also for women. This is
most surprising because most studies have shown that a high
cholesterol is not a risk factor for women. (Most surprising-
but the good Doctor Ravnskov doesn't rebut it.)

Second, old individuals were protected just as much as young
ones, although most studies have shown that a high
cholesterol is a weak risk factor, or no risk factor at all,
for men above fifty. (So there are individuals who die of
causes other than cardiac induced ones. Big surprise. How
many degrees does a doctor have in order to figure that out?
Meanwhile, for those who are over fifty and who are at risk
from cholesterol???)

Third, also the number of strokes was reduced after statin
treatment, although no studies have shown that a high
cholesterol is a risk factor for stroke. (So if drug X was
shown to combat the risk of contracting cancer, yet no
studies should that it protected against contracting
multiple scelorisis, the drug should not be prescribed???)

Fourth, patients who had had a coronary were protected
although most studies have shown that a high cholesterol
is a weak risk factor, if any at all, for those who
already have had a coronary. (In fact, this finding should
have stopped all the previous, secondary preventive
trials). (First parenthetical statement the good Dr.
Ravnskov's, this comment is mine. Most studies??? In other
words, he'll choose the studies that support his position.
I had a first heart attack, and then a second before any
intervention regarding cholesterol could be taken. Is it
okay with the good
Dr. Ravnskov and with you that I be permitted to take
a statin?)

And finally, the statins protected against coronary heart
disease whether the cholesterol was high or low although
most studies have shown that a normal or low cholesterol is
no risk factor for coronary disease.

How come that the statins are effective for women, for old
people, for patients who already have had a coronary, and
even for those whose cholesterol is normal? If the
cholesterol level for these people is no risk factor for
coronary disease, how could a lowering of that cholesterol
improve their chances to avoid a coronary? The only
reasonable explanation is that the statins do more than just
lower cholesterol. There is much evidence for that. (So we
ought to throw the drugs out because, although they are
effective against coronary risk, in the good Dr. Ravenskov's
not so humble opinion which simply discards those studies
that don't support his ideas, simply because the mechanism
involved might, in his not so humble opinion, be unknown?
And in the meanwhile, folks can continue to be at risk for
coronary problems.)

The statins inhibit the body's production of a substance
called mevalonate, which is a precursor of cholesterol.
When the production of mevalonate goes down, less
cholesterol is produced by the cells and thus blood
cholesterol goes down as well. But mevalonate is a
precursor of other substances also, substances with
important biologic functions.The metabolic pathways are not
known in all details, but less mevalonate may explain why
simvastatin makes smooth muscle cells less active and
platelets less inclined to produce thromboxane. One of the
first steps in arteriosclerosis is the growth and migration
of smooth muscle cells inside the artery walls; and
thromboxane is a substance which promotes the clogging of
blood. Thus, by blocking the function of smooth muscle
cells and platelets, simvastatin may benefit cardiovascular
disease by at least two mechanisms and both of these
mechanisms are independent of the cholesterol level (82).

In one of the experiments, performed by Dr. Yusuke Hidaka
and his team the inhibitory effect on the muscle cells could
not be abolished by adding LDL-cholesterol to the test tubes
(83); and in experiments with various cholesterol-lowering
agents, thromboxane production was inhibited by statins
only, indicating that the effect was not due to cholesterol
lowering but to something else (82).

The protective effects of simvastatin was also demonstrated
in animal experiments. In one of them, performed by Dr. B.M.
Meiser and colleagues from Munich, Germany, hearts were
transplanted into rats. Normally, the function of such
grafts gradually deteriorates because the coronary vessels
are narrowed by an increased growth of smooth muscle cells
in the vascular walls, a condition called graft vessel
disease. In Dr. Meiser's experiment, however, rats that were
given simvastatin had considerably less graft vessel disease
than control rats not given simvastatin, and this was not
due to cholesterol lowering because simvastatin does not
lower cholesterol in rats. In fact, LDL cholesterol was
highest in the rats treated with simvastatin
(84).

In another experiment, Dr. Maurizio Soma and his colleagues
from Milan, Italy placed a flexible collar around one of the
carotic arteries in rabbits. After two weeks arteries with
collars became narrow but less so if the rabbit had been
given simvastatin. Again, the effect was unrelated to the
rabbits´ cholesterol level (85).

**Thus, the statins in some way protect against
cardiovascular disease, but their effect is not due to cholesterol-
lowering.** (Emphasis mine. It's important to note what the
good Dr. Ravnskov has just stated; it's really game, set and
match. Again, if drug X was shown to combat the risk of
contracting cancer, yet no studies should that it protected
against contracting multiple scelorisis, the drug should not
be prescribed???)

But why bother about pharmacological mechanisms? Isn´t
it wonderful that the statins work? Shouldn´t we all
take statins?

(Absolutely, those for whom statins are indicated as
prescribed by their physicians should. What follows from the
good Dr. Ravnskov is simply the same tired argument that
folks like Lohse have been posting. There are side effects.
Yes indeed. And I choose to risk them in order to obtain the
benefits.)

The costs:

To answer that question it is necessary to look at the
figures from the trials. To be short I have chosen the
figures for coronary death. According to the results from
the 4S trial (86) there was a 41% reduction in the risk of
coronary death. According to the results from the CARE trial
(87) the reduction was 24%, and according to the WOSCOP (88)
trial the reduction was 28%. These figures seem impressive,
but let us look at the absolute figures also.

In the treatment group of the 4S trial five percent, or 111
individuals, died from a heart attack; in the control group
8.5 percent, or 189 individuals, died, a difference, or a
risk reduction of 3.5%. To prevent these 3.5% of the
patients (8.5% - 5%) or 78 individuals, from dying it was
necessary to treat 2221 individuals during five years. You
could also say that to prevent one death it was necessary to
treat 25 individuals for five years. Or said in another way,
if you have had a heart attack the chance to avoid death
from a new one during five years is 91.5%. If you eat
simvastatin this chance increases to 95%.

In the CARE trial 5.7%, or 119 individuals died from a heart
attack in the control group and 4.6%, or 96 individuals in
the treatment group. Thus, to prevent 23 coronary deaths
(1.1%) it had been necessary to treat 2081 individuals for
five years, which means that 90 patients were treated for
each life saved.

In the WOSCOP trial, which concerned healthy individuals
with a high cholesterol, the result was even less
impressive. Here, 61 died in the placebo group, 41 in
the treatment group, a risk reduction of 0.6%. To save
these 20 lives it had been necessary to treat 3302
healthy individuals for five years, or 165 individuals
for each life.

Said in another way, the risk of dying from a heart attack
during five years if you are about 55 years old and if your
cholesterol is around 272 mg per dl is 1.8%. With
pravastatin treatment the risk is reduced to 1.2%. You could
also say that the chance to avoid death from a heart attack
for five years is 98.2%; with pravastatin the chance is
98.8%. The reason why trial results should be given in
absolute figures and not in relative is because the side
effects are given in absolute figures. Let us assume that a
mortal side effect occurs in 0.5 percent of the patients.
You may belittle that if you compare this figure for
instance with a relative risk reduction of 28%. But as the
absolute risk reduction was 0.6% the effect of treatment has
almost disappeared.

**To be fair it should be mentioned that the number of non-
fatal heart attacks was reduced also. In the WOSCOP trial
for instance, 248 individuals in the control group had a
fatal or non-fatal coronary, in the pravastatin group the
number was 174.** This means that to prevent a heart attack
in a healthy 55 year old man with a high cholesterol it is
necessary to treat about 45 men for five years. To prevent a
new heart attack it is necessary to treat 34 patients for
five years according to the CARE trial and 28 patients
according to the 4S trial. (Emphasis again is mine. I
haven't commented on the above paragraphs under the heading
of costs, because they don't amount to more than a statement
that "the drugs have benefits, but there are risks. I've
commented here because it demonstrates that manner in which
the good Dr. Ravnskov constructs arguments. All of the above
figures need to be considered against the backdrop of
preventing non-fatal, as well as fatal, infarcs. Or does
anyone out there think that non-fatal infarcs are a good
thing, and the lasting effects thereof do not lead to other
health issues?)

It is necessary also to look at the costs, but this is not
an easy task. For the drugs only the price for one extra
year for one person was about $41,000 in the 4S trial, about
$148,000 in the CARE trial and about $205,000 in the WOSCOP
trial. To that should be added the costs for laboratory
tests and doctors´ fee.

**There are economical gains also, of course. The directors
of the most succesful trial 4S claim that the reduced costs
due to the lower number of non-fatal heart attacks outweigh
the expenses. But that trial concerned patients at a very
high risk of cardiovascular disease. To treat healthy
individuals with a high cholesterol must be very expensive,
however, because the gain was very small.** (You figure that
those who survived the risk and had infarcs prevented don't
think that the cost was worth it?)

The 4S directors´ optimistic views presuppose that the
effect is just as positive after ten or twenty years of
treatment as it was after five. Unfortunately we cannot
guarantee that. (There are no guarantees about anything.
I'll settle for five years as a fist step.) Recently, Drs.
Thomas Newman and Stephen Hulley published the results from
a meticulous review of what we know about cancer and lipid-
lowering drugs. They found that clofibrate, gemfibrozil and
all the statins stimulate cancer growth in rodents (90).

Newman and Hulley asked themselves why these drugs had been
approved by the Food and Drug Administration at all. The
answer was that the doses used in the animal experiments
were much higher than those recommended for clinical use.
But as Drs. Newman and Hulley commented, it is more relevant
to compare blood levels, and the levels achieved in rodents
were very close to those seen in patients.

Because the latent period between exposure to a carcinogen
and the incidence of clinical cancer in humans may be 20
years or more, the absence of any controlled trials of this
duration means that we do not know whether statin treament
will lead to an increased rate of cancer in coming decades.

Thus, millions of asymptomatic people are being treated with
medications, the ultimate effects of which are not yet
known. Drs. Newman and Hulley therefore recommended that the
new statins should be used for patients at very high risk
for coronary disease only, whereas such treatment should be
avoided for individuals with life expectancies of more than
10 to 20 years. And healthy people with a high cholesterol
as the only risk marker belong to that category.

***End of quoted material****

As I have the time and incliniation, I'll look at the other
links that you've provided. I'll tell you up front that if
they are of the same "quality" as the one hawking Dr.
Ravnskov's wares, I will stop bothering.

In the meanwhile, once one cuts through the smoke and noise
on the linked site, one finds that Dr. Ravnskov agrees that
the statins have been effective for doing what they are
advertised to do, but is disturbed by the fact that they,
**like virtually every other drug prescribed today, and
like many over the counter drugs** have risks of side
effects. This isn't news, although it does enable folks
like Dr. Ravnskov to make money selling books on the
premise that it is news.

Quoted message said:

www.thincs.org.

ti.ubc.caletter49.htmOpen ↗
ti.ubc.caletter48.htmOpen ↗
www.nofreelunch.org www.publiccitizen.org
www.redflagsweekly.com www.healthyskepticism.org

B'adant

Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal
advice, because we do not have an attorney-client
relationship, and should not be construed as either. This
posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but
is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and
replace with the numeral 3

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:26:50 GMT, NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

This input on Zocor and other Statins is overwhelming. I
should have done my own study prior to posting. I think I
will just stop the Zocor tonight. I have friends who
developed similar problems and they stopped all Statins.
Here is the funny part. They started of something called
Pliconisol (?) something like that and red yeast. My info
on red yeast is that is contains an unrefined form of a
statin and no certain amount. Guess what! Perfect
cholesterol, ldl and hdl with no problems. How about the
placebo affect? Matt

Policosanol is a mixture of fatty alcohols derived from the
wax of sugar cane.

Red yeast extract is chemically very similar to the
prescription statin medication Mevacor.

Ah...if only things were perfect!

Good luck.

L.

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

This input on Zocor and other Statins is overwhelming. I
should have done my own study prior to posting. I think I
will just stop the Zocor tonight. I have friends who
developed similar problems and they stopped all Statins.
Here is the funny part. They started of something called
Pliconisol (?) something like that and red yeast. My info
on red yeast is that is contains an unrefined form of a
statin and no certain amount. Guess what! Perfect
cholesterol, ldl and hdl with no problems. How about the
placebo affect? Matt

*******************************

There are risks here Matt, both with stopping statins cold
turkey, and with the supplements you have named. Please
inform yourself and discuss with a physician about how to
stop Zocor. I stopped cold. But then, I stopped cold because
Baycol was recalled. Very likely I continued with buffered
aspirin, as I use it regularly, but I don't remember
definitely.

Regarding the supplements, I would not use either of these
products. I am very wary of unregulated untested medications
(which I believe supplements are). Apart from the aspirin,
and a short trial on folate, I use none and never have, not
even vitamins. You of course, will make your own decision.

Following is a study on stopping statins suddenly. I suggest
you consider it carefully, and discuss how you will do what
you have determined to do, with a physician's help.

B'adant

Thromb Haemost. 2003 Sep;90(3):476-82. Related
Articles, Links

Platelet hyperactivity after statin treatment
discontinuation.

Puccetti L, Pasqui AL, Pastorelli M, Bova G, Di Renzo M, Leo
A, Cercignani M, Palazzuoli A, Auteri A, Bruni F.

Department of Clinical Medicine and Immunological Sciences,
Internal Medicine Division, Policlinico Le Scotte, V. le
Bracci, 53100, Siena, Italy. [email hidden]

Hydroxymethyl-glutaryl-CoA-reductase inhibitors (statins)
reduce cardiovascular events by cholesterol lowering as well
as by non-lipid related actions. Among them, the modulation
of platelet activity could play a relevant role in vascular
protection. Furthermore withdrawal of statins has been
associated with increased cardiovascular event rate. The aim
of our study was to evaluate platelet activity after
cerivastatin discontinuation in eighteen subjects that did
not accept other drugs and in sixteen subjects continuing
treatment with simvastatin. Fourteen subjects at the end of
the discontinuation period decided to receive other drugs
(simvastatin) and they were evaluted six weeks later. We
measured complete lipid profile by the chromogenic method
(LDL-C was calculated); oxidized-LDL (ox-LDL; ELISA),
platelet P-selectin (P-sel) expression (flow cytometry
detection), platelet aggregation (% change of transmitted
light), intracellular citrullin production (iCit; HPLC) as
an indicator of intracellular NO synthase activity at
baseline and 7, 14, 28, 60 days after statin
discontinuation. P-sel expression and platelet aggregation
were increased at 14 days (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05) in
association with raised ox-LDL (r = 0.30, p < 0.05) and
decreased iCit (r = 0.53, p < 0.01). Increased LDL-C was
related to P-sel and platelet aggregation at 28 days (r =
0.30, p < 0.05). Subjects continuing statin treatment had no
significant changes of P-sel at 28 (p = 0.221) and 60 days
(p = 0.238). Subjects treated with simvastatin after 60 days
of diet showed a significant reduction of P-sel and platelet
aggregation after six weeks of treatment (p < 0.01). Our
data suggest a platelet hyperactivation state in the second
week after statin discontinuation which is partially related
to raised LDL-C. Such a finding could participate in the
increased cardiovascular event rate after statin
discontinuation.

***************************

Quoted message said:

Zee said:

[email hidden] (Zee) wrote in message news:<e5f4a9c-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message new-
s:<[email hidden].-
net>...

>Thank you for sharing your experience. It would seem I
>have been on every statin and other cholesterol
>lowering drug since they came out. My Cholesterol is
>168 and tri's around 260+. My mother had her
>cholesterol checked when they started doing monitoring.
>Her were always around 300. No diet, no exercise made
>any difference. She refused medication as she perceived
>her diet to be nearly perfect and would not take them.
>She lived to be 94 with no drugs other that Allopurinol
>and an occasional Aspirin. Matt
>
>
>Zee wrote:
>
>
>>NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message ne-
>>ws:<[email hidden]-
>>k.net>...
>>
>>
>>>I have been taking Zocor since it came out. I now
>>>have severe muscle pain with contractions. Foot pain
>>>so bad I can't sleep. Eye problems that cause blurry
>>>vision and no depth perception. I stopped it for
>>>nearly two weeks and the problems got much better. My
>>>doctor said I had to go back on it as those with
>>>Diabetes had to be on it or they would die soon of
>>>cardio disease. So I am back on it and the pain is
>>>intense. The doctor said the Zocor would cure the leg
>>>and foot pains but it has not. I also have
>>>generalized weakness and fatigue. Matt
>>
>>
>>Matt I suggest you contact Dr. Golomb's office about
>>your difficulties with Zocor. The phone number is
>>here. If you are unable to visit, she will talk with
>>your physician. She did that for me. Her office will
>>provide you with information about statin side
>>effects. If you are not able to speak with her
>>directly at first, ask for John.
>>medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗
>>
>>I have had all the symptoms you talk about and more.
>>All my symptoms were increased/returned on a short
>>trial of Zocor Jan-Apr 2003, the last time I used a
>>statin. I have permanent documented vision damage
>>among other seemingly permanent damage.
>>
>>Statin caused muscle damage does not always show with
>>elevated CK levels. You may need to have a muscle
>>biopsy to determine that. Dr. Golomb's office can
>>probably give you more information on that.
>>
>>I do not know about exercise, diet and diabetes, but I
>>can tell you that diet and exercise affected my total
>>cholesterol less than 1/3 and my ldl even less than
>>that.
>>
>>If you wish contact me at [email hidden].
>>Remove the Xs.
>>
>>B'adant

Total cholesterol at end of 6 months long physical rehab
ending 1997, 378; at which point I was started on
statins, to include pravastatin, atorvastatin,
cerivastatin and simvastatin.

Total cholesterol as of Oct 3, 2003; 463--no medication.
I include supplements in that category.

The cholesterol numbers are as near as I can figure
using the conversion of 39.97 times.

I have no heart disease, below-to-normal blood pressure,
and all the damage caused by statins which I have
documented here. I have never used HRT, which at one
time was touted to protect from cholesterol damage, and
I am 61.

At the time I was put on statins, at the end of the
rehab, I was swimming 25 lengths of an Olympic length
pool, "cross country skiing" 10 widths with pool weights
and float belt, gym 45 minutes free weights, 5 mile run
(last race 38 minutes) all 4 times a week; and 45
minutes hill ramble/hike (typically 8 miles) once a
week, and 10-15 mile cross country hike once or twice a
month.

I eat a whole food, omnivore diet weighted to chocolate.

And I am putting this here on the record for anyone who
thinks they have to take a toxic drug, lower cholesterol
and get miserable in order to live. You don't

B'adant

To clarify, and avoid any further damage to anyone who
may already have statin damage, I do not suggest one
attempt the exercise regime I undertook PRIOR to
starring statin therapy (wow! that one's better than
jumbo shrimp...where was I...)....

My point was: that person is who I was before I started
statins. Statins dropped me to my knees. So any theory
about not exercising and eating properly and just
hucking pills into my gob rather than taking
responsibility is akin to a cold flacid jackfish.

But this post is about Matt. Get thee to a physician me
boyo! One named Beatrice.

B'adant

Steve,

Your clear, lucid thinking and comments are *very* much
appreciated. I suspect they will be met with more self-
referential arguement or an attempt to discredit you, or
even nothing! Please don't let that stop you from posting
your thoughts. It's really important.

Thank you.

Listener.

Steve Marcus said:

OK. I'll play. Comments on the key material from the above
link appear in parentheses. Nota bene, there is on such
comment that follows material in the original that is also
contained within parentheses.

From the above link: ***Begin quoted material; see the
above for an important note on my comments being inserted
therein.***

6. The effect of the statins is not due to cholesterol-
lowering:

As mentioned in section 4 cholesterol-lowering by itself
does not prolong your life. In the experiments, that have
shown this fact beyond all doubt, cholesterol-lowering was
performed by diet or by use of various older drugs such as
clofibrate (Atromidin®), gemfibrozil (Lopid®),
cholestyramine (Questran®), colestipol (Lestid®), and
nicotinic acid (Nicangin®). But a new type of cholesterol-
lowering drugs, the so-called statins (for instance Zocord®
and Pravachol®) have been succesful. **For the first time
cholesterol-lowering have shown significant improvement of
mortality, both coronary mortality, stroke mortality and
total mortality. These trials are therefore considered as
strong arguments for the idea, that a high cholesterol is
dangerous.** (Emphasis added by me- and the reader will
note that the rest of what follows is a circular argument
constructed by the good Doctor Ravnskov in order to be able
what he himself has just admitted in the emphasized
sentence.)

Have these trials really demonstrated that raised LDL
cholesterol has importance for coronary heart disease, as
the trial directors concluded in the reports?

There is reason to question that, because some of the
results are not consistent with what we have learned about
cholesterol.

First, the statins were effective also for women. This is
most surprising because most studies have shown that a high
cholesterol is not a risk factor for women. (Most surprising-
but the good Doctor Ravnskov doesn't rebut it.)

Second, old individuals were protected just as much as
young ones, although most studies have shown that a high
cholesterol is a weak risk factor, or no risk factor at
all, for men above fifty. (So there are individuals who die
of causes other than cardiac induced ones. Big surprise.
How many degrees does a doctor have in order to figure that
out? Meanwhile, for those who are over fifty and who are at
risk from cholesterol???)

Third, also the number of strokes was reduced after statin
treatment, although no studies have shown that a high
cholesterol is a risk factor for stroke. (So if drug X was
shown to combat the risk of contracting cancer, yet no
studies should that it protected against contracting
multiple scelorisis, the drug should not be prescribed???)

Fourth, patients who had had a coronary were protected
although most studies have shown that a high cholesterol
is a weak risk factor, if any at all, for those who
already have had a coronary. (In fact, this finding should
have stopped all the previous, secondary preventive
trials). (First parenthetical statement the good Dr.
Ravnskov's, this comment is mine. Most studies??? In other
words, he'll choose the studies that support his position.
I had a first heart attack, and then a second before any
intervention regarding cholesterol could be taken. Is it
okay with the good
Dr. Ravnskov and with you that I be permitted to take a
statin?)

And finally, the statins protected against coronary heart
disease whether the cholesterol was high or low although
most studies have shown that a normal or low cholesterol is
no risk factor for coronary disease.

How come that the statins are effective for women, for old
people, for patients who already have had a coronary, and
even for those whose cholesterol is normal? If the
cholesterol level for these people is no risk factor for
coronary disease, how could a lowering of that cholesterol
improve their chances to avoid a coronary? The only
reasonable explanation is that the statins do more than
just lower cholesterol. There is much evidence for that.
(So we ought to throw the drugs out because, although they
are effective against coronary risk, in the good Dr.
Ravenskov's not so humble opinion which simply discards
those studies that don't support his ideas, simply because
the mechanism involved might, in his not so humble opinion,
be unknown? And in the meanwhile, folks can continue to be
at risk for coronary problems.)

The statins inhibit the body's production of a substance
called mevalonate, which is a precursor of cholesterol.
When the production of mevalonate goes down, less
cholesterol is produced by the cells and thus blood
cholesterol goes down as well. But mevalonate is a
precursor of other substances also, substances with
important biologic functions.The metabolic pathways are not
known in all details, but less mevalonate may explain why
simvastatin makes smooth muscle cells less active and
platelets less inclined to produce thromboxane. One of the
first steps in arteriosclerosis is the growth and migration
of smooth muscle cells inside the artery walls; and
thromboxane is a substance which promotes the clogging of
blood. Thus, by blocking the function of smooth muscle
cells and platelets, simvastatin may benefit cardiovascular
disease by at least two mechanisms and both of these
mechanisms are independent of the cholesterol level (82).

In one of the experiments, performed by Dr. Yusuke Hidaka
and his team the inhibitory effect on the muscle cells
could not be abolished by adding LDL-cholesterol to the
test tubes (83); and in experiments with various cholesterol-
lowering agents, thromboxane production was inhibited by
statins only, indicating that the effect was not due to
cholesterol lowering but to something else (82).

The protective effects of simvastatin was also demonstrated
in animal experiments. In one of them, performed by Dr.
B.M. Meiser and colleagues from Munich, Germany, hearts
were transplanted into rats. Normally, the function of such
grafts gradually deteriorates because the coronary vessels
are narrowed by an increased growth of smooth muscle cells
in the vascular walls, a condition called graft vessel
disease. In Dr. Meiser's experiment, however, rats that
were given simvastatin had considerably less graft vessel
disease than control rats not given simvastatin, and this
was not due to cholesterol lowering because simvastatin
does not lower cholesterol in rats. In fact, LDL
cholesterol was highest in the rats treated with
simvastatin
(84).

In another experiment, Dr. Maurizio Soma and his colleagues
from Milan, Italy placed a flexible collar around one of
the carotic arteries in rabbits. After two weeks arteries
with collars became narrow but less so if the rabbit had
been given simvastatin. Again, the effect was unrelated to
the rabbits´ cholesterol level (85).

**Thus, the statins in some way protect against
cardiovascular disease, but their effect is not due to cholesterol-
lowering.** (Emphasis mine. It's important to note what the
good Dr. Ravnskov has just stated; it's really game, set
and match. Again, if drug X was shown to combat the risk of
contracting cancer, yet no studies should that it protected
against contracting multiple scelorisis, the drug should
not be prescribed???)

But why bother about pharmacological mechanisms? Isn´t
it wonderful that the statins work? Shouldn´t we all
take statins?

(Absolutely, those for whom statins are indicated as
prescribed by their physicians should. What follows from
the good Dr. Ravnskov is simply the same tired argument
that folks like Lohse have been posting. There are side
effects. Yes indeed. And I choose to risk them in order to
obtain the benefits.)

The costs:

To answer that question it is necessary to look at the
figures from the trials. To be short I have chosen the
figures for coronary death. According to the results from
the 4S trial (86) there was a 41% reduction in the risk of
coronary death. According to the results from the CARE
trial (87) the reduction was 24%, and according to the
WOSCOP (88) trial the reduction was 28%. These figures seem
impressive, but let us look at the absolute figures also.

In the treatment group of the 4S trial five percent, or 111
individuals, died from a heart attack; in the control group
8.5 percent, or 189 individuals, died, a difference, or a
risk reduction of 3.5%. To prevent these 3.5% of the
patients (8.5% - 5%) or 78 individuals, from dying it was
necessary to treat 2221 individuals during five years. You
could also say that to prevent one death it was necessary
to treat 25 individuals for five years. Or said in another
way, if you have had a heart attack the chance to avoid
death from a new one during five years is 91.5%. If you eat
simvastatin this chance increases to 95%.

In the CARE trial 5.7%, or 119 individuals died from a
heart attack in the control group and 4.6%, or 96
individuals in the treatment group. Thus, to prevent 23
coronary deaths (1.1%) it had been necessary to treat 2081
individuals for five years, which means that 90 patients
were treated for each life saved.

In the WOSCOP trial, which concerned healthy individuals
with a high cholesterol, the result was even less
impressive. Here, 61 died in the placebo group, 41 in
the treatment group, a risk reduction of 0.6%. To save
these 20 lives it had been necessary to treat 3302
healthy individuals for five years, or 165 individuals
for each life.

Said in another way, the risk of dying from a heart attack
during five years if you are about 55 years old and if your
cholesterol is around 272 mg per dl is 1.8%. With
pravastatin treatment the risk is reduced to 1.2%. You
could also say that the chance to avoid death from a heart
attack for five years is 98.2%; with pravastatin the chance
is 98.8%. The reason why trial results should be given in
absolute figures and not in relative is because the side
effects are given in absolute figures. Let us assume that a
mortal side effect occurs in 0.5 percent of the patients.
You may belittle that if you compare this figure for
instance with a relative risk reduction of 28%. But as the
absolute risk reduction was 0.6% the effect of treatment
has almost disappeared.

**To be fair it should be mentioned that the number of non-
fatal heart attacks was reduced also. In the WOSCOP trial
for instance, 248 individuals in the control group had a
fatal or non-fatal coronary, in the pravastatin group the
number was 174.** This means that to prevent a heart attack
in a healthy 55 year old man with a high cholesterol it is
necessary to treat about 45 men for five years. To prevent
a new heart attack it is necessary to treat 34 patients for
five years according to the CARE trial and 28 patients
according to the 4S trial. (Emphasis again is mine. I
haven't commented on the above paragraphs under the heading
of costs, because they don't amount to more than a
statement that "the drugs have benefits, but there are
risks. I've commented here because it demonstrates that
manner in which the good Dr. Ravnskov constructs arguments.
All of the above figures need to be considered against the
backdrop of preventing non-fatal, as well as fatal,
infarcs. Or does anyone out there think that non-fatal
infarcs are a good thing, and the lasting effects thereof
do not lead to other health issues?)

It is necessary also to look at the costs, but this is not
an easy task. For the drugs only the price for one extra
year for one person was about $41,000 in the 4S trial,
about $148,000 in the CARE trial and about $205,000 in the
WOSCOP trial. To that should be added the costs for
laboratory tests and doctors´ fee.

**There are economical gains also, of course. The directors
of the most succesful trial 4S claim that the reduced costs
due to the lower number of non-fatal heart attacks outweigh
the expenses. But that trial concerned patients at a very
high risk of cardiovascular disease. To treat healthy
individuals with a high cholesterol must be very expensive,
however, because the gain was very small.** (You figure
that those who survived the risk and had infarcs prevented
don't think that the cost was worth it?)

The 4S directors´ optimistic views presuppose that the
effect is just as positive after ten or twenty years of
treatment as it was after five. Unfortunately we cannot
guarantee that. (There are no guarantees about anything.
I'll settle for five years as a fist step.) Recently, Drs.
Thomas Newman and Stephen Hulley published the results from
a meticulous review of what we know about cancer and lipid-
lowering drugs. They found that clofibrate, gemfibrozil and
all the statins stimulate cancer growth in rodents (90).

Newman and Hulley asked themselves why these drugs had been
approved by the Food and Drug Administration at all. The
answer was that the doses used in the animal experiments
were much higher than those recommended for clinical use.
But as Drs. Newman and Hulley commented, it is more
relevant to compare blood levels, and the levels achieved
in rodents were very close to those seen in patients.

Because the latent period between exposure to a carcinogen
and the incidence of clinical cancer in humans may be 20
years or more, the absence of any controlled trials of this
duration means that we do not know whether statin treament
will lead to an increased rate of cancer in coming decades.

Thus, millions of asymptomatic people are being treated
with medications, the ultimate effects of which are not yet
known. Drs. Newman and Hulley therefore recommended that
the new statins should be used for patients at very high
risk for coronary disease only, whereas such treatment
should be avoided for individuals with life expectancies of
more than 10 to 20 years. And healthy people with a high
cholesterol as the only risk marker belong to that
category.

***End of quoted material****

As I have the time and incliniation, I'll look at the other
links that you've provided. I'll tell you up front that if
they are of the same "quality" as the one hawking Dr.
Ravnskov's wares, I will stop bothering.

In the meanwhile, once one cuts through the smoke and noise
on the linked site, one finds that Dr. Ravnskov agrees that
the statins have been effective for doing what they are
advertised to do, but is disturbed by the fact that they,
**like virtually every other drug prescribed today, and
like many over the counter drugs** have risks of side
effects. This isn't news, although it does enable folks
like Dr. Ravnskov to make money selling books on the
premise that it is news.

Quoted message said:

www.thincs.org.

ti.ubc.caletter49.htmOpen ↗
ti.ubc.caletter48.htmOpen ↗
www.nofreelunch.org www.publiccitizen.org
www.redflagsweekly.com www.healthyskepticism.org

B'adant

Steve

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

Quoted message said:

On 20 Mar 2004 22:56:31 -0800, [email hidden]

(Zee) said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]-
nk.net>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Okay but what do you take to lower your cholesterol.
The exercise is too much for me.

Matt said: what do you take to lower your cholesterol

Nothing. I don't worry about my cholesterol. It's all
hype, benefiting no one but drug companies. Our bodies
and our brains need cholesterol. Some people just
normally have high cholesterol.

See Dr. Golomb first, then see a physical therapist who
can get you going, from where you are now. Ask for a
program of water therapy. Find a pool that is slightly
warmer than normal. Don't do it yourself, because you
will need a very mild, and personalized program, directed
by someone with education in working with paraplegics.
Really.

Does lowered cholesterol save lives? Over 50 per cent of
those who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol.

Do a search in this newsgroup for posts made by Al.
Lohse. Read the discussions about cholesterol at
www.thincs.org.

What you will find is another point of view. One to be
weighed carefully. I have done so, disagree with much,
agree with much, and found my own way, which does not
include lowering my cholesterol.

It's futile anyway. Stringent diet and punishing
exercise: 378. Pass the chocolate: 463. Obviously, my
body is trying to tell me something.

And Matt, the most important thing to consider is this.
With that cholesterol level I have no heart disease.
Obviously, high cholesterol is not the cause of heart
disease.

Just possibly, stress, attitude and inflammation are.
Read...and make your own decisons. I have.

ravnskov.nucholesterol.htmOpen ↗

Continuing with a review of these links, let's consider this
from the second link, the opening paragraphs of an article
entitled Statin Drugs - A Critical Review of the
Risk/Benefit Clinical Research by Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry Emeritus USP Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Again, my comments will be parenthetical. Nota bene, there
are parenthetical comments in the original and I will
distinguish mine from those where there is a chance of
confusion:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

www.thincs.org.

"The statin drugs are essentially the HMG-CoA reductase
inhibitors: atorvastatin (LipitorT), cerivastatin (BaycolT,
withdrawn 8/01), fluvastatin (LescolT), lovastatin
(MevacorT), pravastatin (PravacholT), simvastatin (ZocorT),
pitavastatin and rosuvastatin (CrestorT), which were
introduced to lower total cholesterol (TC) levels, and
especially LDL-cholesterol (LDL) levels, ostensibly to
prevent coronary heart disease (CVD).

Many well-funded sources attempt to justify the wide use of
the statin drugs to lower TC and LDL by citing references in
support of the claims that high levels of TC and LDL have
been correlated with cardiovascular disease. Such claims are
unfounded, since high TC and LDL are well-correlated with
age, which is a risk factor.[1,2] With age removed, there is
almost no correlation, and certainly none that allows a
worthwhile prediction of risk for a given individual. The
rare familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), in which TC > 400
mg/dL, is usually represented as more deadly than it really
is, when the sales of statin drugs are at stake. Moreover,
the removal of those with FH from the high TC and LDL groups
in epidemiological studies also removes any predictive
ability.[1] " (At this point, lets note that footnotes 1 and
2 are directed to the work of the good Dr. Ravnskov, with
whom I've dealt in my previous post. So it seems that this
material depends upon the previous material, which as I've
shown, doesn't really cut against the prescribed use of
statins at all.)

The supposed benefits of the statins, beyond a large, but
meaningless lowering of TC and LDL, long recognized as a
worthless surrogate endpoint,[3] are usually given as
lowered relative risks (RR) of mostly non-fatal heart
attacks without the slightest indication of the low
magnitude of the more meaningful reduction of absolute risk
or of all-cause death rates. This misrepresentation has been
noted.[1,4] So the usual tout of pravastatin in the WOSCOPS
trial, based on a 22% drop in all-cause mortality, was given
without the information that this was only a 0.9% drop
absolute in the 5-year trial period, or 0.18% per year. The
higher all-cause death rates in 2 of the big trials of
lovastatin were ignored, as was the higher breast cancer
rate (RR = 1500%) in the CARE trial with pravastatin.[1]
Furthermore, it is also known that studies of drugs
sponsored by their maker are often biased or selected, so
even the 0.9% was probably exaggerated.[5-7] (Again,
citations to the work of the good Dr. Ravnskov. As he did,
the good Dr. Kaufman tends to dismiss a drug which will he
admits will reduce the occurrence of non-fatal heart
attacks, as though a drug that can do that is worthless.
Without access to the authority for footnotes 3-5, it is
difficult to assess the validity of the arguments for which
they are cited, but it is noted that a statement that the
lowering of total cholestrol and low density lipids is a
worthless surrogate endpoint assumes the conclusion that the
good Dr. Kaufman wants to make, particularly with respect to
the sources represented by notes 4 and 5 which do not appear
( based upon their titles) to be specific to cardiac health
at all but are general references regarding numbers and
conflicts of interest.)"

Additional comments: I am not going to waste my time
reproducing the balance of the article; the whole article
is, after all, linked and the above comments and those that
follow can be checked against the words of the good Dr.
Kaufman. The balance of the article simply hammers on the
question of side effects, without any attempt to demonstrate
that the risks outweigh the benefits, acknowledges that
statins do lower the risk of non-fatal heart attacks (with a
caveat that buffered aspirin can too, but without any
statement that aspirin can do so as effectively as the
statins), and then dismisses all statins by citing studies
that call into question the efficacy of only two of the
statin drugs versus the effects of aspirin.

By the way, can anyone tell me if Dr. Kaufman is a
medical doctor?

Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal
advice, because we do not have an attorney-client
relationship, and should not be construed as either. This
posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but
is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and
replace with the numeral 3

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ti.ubc.caletter49.htmOpen ↗
ti.ubc.caletter48.htmOpen ↗
www.nofreelunch.org www.publiccitizen.org
www.redflagsweekly.com www.healthyskepticism.org

B'adant

Uh, oh. Looks like they've snagged another
unsuspecting victim.

As Badant said in another post:

"And also in my opinion--it's all just opinion. No matter
what sophistry you try to lay on me, it's still just
opinion. Yours. And mine."

Please keep that in mind when reading "medical advice"
from Badant. Personally, I find many of her posts
reckless, loose with the facts and full of scare tactics
that could cause unneccesary panic and/or stress.

(Of course her "opinion" goes against hundreds of
published studies showing the efficacy and benefit of
statins.)

L.

"Steve Marcus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<aTh7c.27218$272.27105@lakeread03>...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]-
.net>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Okay but what do you take to lower your cholesterol.
The exercise is too much for me.

Matt said: what do you take to lower your cholesterol

Nothing. I don't worry about my cholesterol. It's all
hype, benefiting no one but drug companies. Our bodies
and our brains need cholesterol. Some people just
normally have high cholesterol.

See Dr. Golomb first, then see a physical therapist who
can get you going, from where you are now. Ask for a
program of water therapy. Find a pool that is slightly
warmer than normal. Don't do it yourself, because you
will need a very mild, and personalized program,
directed by someone with education in working with
paraplegics. Really.

Does lowered cholesterol save lives? Over 50 per cent of
those who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol.

Do a search in this newsgroup for posts made by Al.
Lohse. Read the discussions about cholesterol at
www.thincs.org.

What you will find is another point of view. One to be
weighed carefully. I have done so, disagree with much,
agree with much, and found my own way, which does not
include lowering my cholesterol.

It's futile anyway. Stringent diet and punishing
exercise: 378. Pass the chocolate: 463. Obviously, my
body is trying to tell me something.

And Matt, the most important thing to consider is this.
With that cholesterol level I have no heart disease.
Obviously, high cholesterol is not the cause of heart
disease.

Just possibly, stress, attitude and inflammation are.
Read...and make your own decisons. I have.

ravnskov.nucholesterol.htmOpen ↗

OK. I'll play. Comments on the key material from the above
link appear in parentheses. Nota bene, there is on such
comment that follows material in the original that is also
contained within parentheses.

From the above link: ***Begin quoted material; see the
above for an important note on my comments being inserted
therein.***

6. The effect of the statins is not due to cholesterol-
lowering:

As mentioned in section 4 cholesterol-lowering by itself
does not prolong your life. In the experiments, that have
shown this fact beyond all doubt, cholesterol-lowering was
performed by diet or by use of various older drugs such as
clofibrate (Atromidin®), gemfibrozil (Lopid®),
cholestyramine (Questran®), colestipol (Lestid®), and
nicotinic acid (Nicangin®). But a new type of cholesterol-
lowering drugs, the so-called statins (for instance
Zocord® and Pravachol®) have been succesful. **For the
first time cholesterol-lowering have shown significant
improvement of mortality, both coronary mortality, stroke
mortality and total mortality. These trials are therefore
considered as strong arguments for the idea, that a high
cholesterol is dangerous.** (Emphasis added by me- and the
reader will note that the rest of what follows is a
circular argument constructed by the good Doctor Ravnskov
in order to be able what he himself has just admitted in
the emphasized sentence.)

Have these trials really demonstrated that raised LDL
cholesterol has importance for coronary heart disease, as
the trial directors concluded in the reports?

There is reason to question that, because some of the
results are not consistent with what we have learned about
cholesterol.

First, the statins were effective also for women. This is
most surprising because most studies have shown that a
high cholesterol is not a risk factor for women. (Most surprising-
but the good Doctor Ravnskov doesn't rebut it.)

Second, old individuals were protected just as much as
young ones, although most studies have shown that a high
cholesterol is a weak risk factor, or no risk factor at
all, for men above fifty. (So there are individuals who
die of causes other than cardiac induced ones. Big
surprise. How many degrees does a doctor have in order to
figure that out? Meanwhile, for those who are over fifty
and who are at risk from cholesterol???)

Third, also the number of strokes was reduced after statin
treatment, although no studies have shown that a high
cholesterol is a risk factor for stroke. (So if drug X was
shown to combat the risk of contracting cancer, yet no
studies should that it protected against contracting
multiple scelorisis, the drug should not be prescribed???)

Fourth, patients who had had a coronary were protected
although most studies have shown that a high cholesterol
is a weak risk factor, if any at all, for those who
already have had a coronary. (In fact, this finding should
have stopped all the previous, secondary preventive
trials). (First parenthetical statement the good Dr.
Ravnskov's, this comment is mine. Most studies??? In other
words, he'll choose the studies that support his position.
I had a first heart attack, and then a second before any
intervention regarding cholesterol could be taken. Is it
okay with the good
Dr. Ravnskov and with you that I be permitted to take a
statin?)

And finally, the statins protected against coronary heart
disease whether the cholesterol was high or low although
most studies have shown that a normal or low cholesterol
is no risk factor for coronary disease.

How come that the statins are effective for women, for old
people, for patients who already have had a coronary, and
even for those whose cholesterol is normal? If the
cholesterol level for these people is no risk factor for
coronary disease, how could a lowering of that cholesterol
improve their chances to avoid a coronary? The only
reasonable explanation is that the statins do more than
just lower cholesterol. There is much evidence for that.
(So we ought to throw the drugs out because, although they
are effective against coronary risk, in the good Dr.
Ravenskov's not so humble opinion which simply discards
those studies that don't support his ideas, simply because
the mechanism involved might, in his not so humble
opinion, be unknown? And in the meanwhile, folks can
continue to be at risk for coronary problems.)

The statins inhibit the body's production of a substance
called mevalonate, which is a precursor of cholesterol.
When the production of mevalonate goes down, less
cholesterol is produced by the cells and thus blood
cholesterol goes down as well. But mevalonate is a
precursor of other substances also, substances with
important biologic functions.The metabolic pathways are
not known in all details, but less mevalonate may explain
why simvastatin makes smooth muscle cells less active and
platelets less inclined to produce thromboxane. One of the
first steps in arteriosclerosis is the growth and
migration of smooth muscle cells inside the artery walls;
and thromboxane is a substance which promotes the clogging
of blood. Thus, by blocking the function of smooth muscle
cells and platelets, simvastatin may benefit
cardiovascular disease by at least two mechanisms and both
of these mechanisms are independent of the cholesterol
level (82).

In one of the experiments, performed by Dr. Yusuke Hidaka
and his team the inhibitory effect on the muscle cells
could not be abolished by adding LDL-cholesterol to the
test tubes (83); and in experiments with various cholesterol-
lowering agents, thromboxane production was inhibited by
statins only, indicating that the effect was not due to
cholesterol lowering but to something else (82).

The protective effects of simvastatin was also
demonstrated in animal experiments. In one of them,
performed by Dr. B.M. Meiser and colleagues from Munich,
Germany, hearts were transplanted into rats. Normally, the
function of such grafts gradually deteriorates because the
coronary vessels are narrowed by an increased growth of
smooth muscle cells in the vascular walls, a condition
called graft vessel disease. In Dr. Meiser's experiment,
however, rats that were given simvastatin had considerably
less graft vessel disease than control rats not given
simvastatin, and this was not due to cholesterol lowering
because simvastatin does not lower cholesterol in rats. In
fact, LDL cholesterol was highest in the rats treated with
simvastatin
(84).

In another experiment, Dr. Maurizio Soma and his
colleagues from Milan, Italy placed a flexible collar
around one of the carotic arteries in rabbits. After two
weeks arteries with collars became narrow but less so if
the rabbit had been given simvastatin. Again, the effect
was unrelated to the rabbits´ cholesterol level (85).

**Thus, the statins in some way protect against
cardiovascular disease, but their effect is not due to cholesterol-
lowering.** (Emphasis mine. It's important to note what
the good Dr. Ravnskov has just stated; it's really game,
set and match. Again, if drug X was shown to combat the
risk of contracting cancer, yet no studies should that it
protected against contracting multiple scelorisis, the
drug should not be prescribed???)

But why bother about pharmacological mechanisms? Isn´t it
wonderful that the statins work? Shouldn´t we all take
statins?

(Absolutely, those for whom statins are indicated as
prescribed by their physicians should. What follows from
the good Dr. Ravnskov is simply the same tired argument
that folks like Lohse have been posting. There are side
effects. Yes indeed. And I choose to risk them in order to
obtain the benefits.)

The costs:

To answer that question it is necessary to look at the
figures from the trials. To be short I have chosen the
figures for coronary death. According to the results
from the 4S trial (86) there was a 41% reduction in the
risk of coronary death. According to the results from
the CARE trial (87) the reduction was 24%, and according
to the WOSCOP (88) trial the reduction was 28%. These
figures seem impressive, but let us look at the absolute
figures also.

In the treatment group of the 4S trial five percent, or
111 individuals, died from a heart attack; in the control
group 8.5 percent, or 189 individuals, died, a difference,
or a risk reduction of 3.5%. To prevent these 3.5% of the
patients (8.5% - 5%) or 78 individuals, from dying it was
necessary to treat 2221 individuals during five years. You
could also say that to prevent one death it was necessary
to treat 25 individuals for five years. Or said in another
way, if you have had a heart attack the chance to avoid
death from a new one during five years is 91.5%. If you
eat simvastatin this chance increases to 95%.

In the CARE trial 5.7%, or 119 individuals died from a
heart attack in the control group and 4.6%, or 96
individuals in the treatment group. Thus, to prevent 23
coronary deaths (1.1%) it had been necessary to treat 2081
individuals for five years, which means that 90 patients
were treated for each life saved.

In the WOSCOP trial, which concerned healthy individuals
with a high cholesterol, the result was even less
impressive. Here, 61 died in the placebo group, 41 in
the treatment group, a risk reduction of 0.6%. To save
these 20 lives it had been necessary to treat 3302
healthy individuals for five years, or 165 individuals
for each life.

Said in another way, the risk of dying from a heart attack
during five years if you are about 55 years old and if
your cholesterol is around 272 mg per dl is 1.8%. With
pravastatin treatment the risk is reduced to 1.2%. You
could also say that the chance to avoid death from a heart
attack for five years is 98.2%; with pravastatin the
chance is 98.8%. The reason why trial results should be
given in absolute figures and not in relative is because
the side effects are given in absolute figures. Let us
assume that a mortal side effect occurs in 0.5 percent of
the patients. You may belittle that if you compare this
figure for instance with a relative risk reduction of 28%.
But as the absolute risk reduction was 0.6% the effect of
treatment has almost disappeared.

**To be fair it should be mentioned that the number of non-
fatal heart attacks was reduced also. In the WOSCOP trial
for instance, 248 individuals in the control group had a
fatal or non-fatal coronary, in the pravastatin group the
number was 174.** This means that to prevent a heart
attack in a healthy 55 year old man with a high
cholesterol it is necessary to treat about 45 men for five
years. To prevent a new heart attack it is necessary to
treat 34 patients for five years according to the CARE
trial and 28 patients according to the 4S trial. (Emphasis
again is mine. I haven't commented on the above paragraphs
under the heading of costs, because they don't amount to
more than a statement that "the drugs have benefits, but
there are risks. I've commented here because it
demonstrates that manner in which the good Dr. Ravnskov
constructs arguments. All of the above figures need to be
considered against the backdrop of preventing non-fatal,
as well as fatal, infarcs. Or does anyone out there think
that non-fatal infarcs are a good thing, and the lasting
effects thereof do not lead to other health issues?)

It is necessary also to look at the costs, but this is not
an easy task. For the drugs only the price for one extra
year for one person was about $41,000 in the 4S trial,
about $148,000 in the CARE trial and about $205,000 in the
WOSCOP trial. To that should be added the costs for
laboratory tests and doctors´ fee.

**There are economical gains also, of course. The
directors of the most succesful trial 4S claim that the
reduced costs due to the lower number of non-fatal heart
attacks outweigh the expenses. But that trial concerned
patients at a very high risk of cardiovascular disease.
To treat healthy individuals with a high cholesterol
must be very expensive, however, because the gain was
very small.** (You figure that those who survived the
risk and had infarcs prevented don't think that the cost
was worth it?)

The 4S directors´ optimistic views presuppose that the
effect is just as positive after ten or twenty years of
treatment as it was after five. Unfortunately we cannot
guarantee that. (There are no guarantees about anything.
I'll settle for five years as a fist step.) Recently, Drs.
Thomas Newman and Stephen Hulley published the results
from a meticulous review of what we know about cancer and
lipid-lowering drugs. They found that clofibrate,
gemfibrozil and all the statins stimulate cancer growth in
rodents (90).

Newman and Hulley asked themselves why these drugs had
been approved by the Food and Drug Administration at all.
The answer was that the doses used in the animal
experiments were much higher than those recommended for
clinical use. But as Drs. Newman and Hulley commented, it
is more relevant to compare blood levels, and the levels
achieved in rodents were very close to those seen in
patients.

Because the latent period between exposure to a carcinogen
and the incidence of clinical cancer in humans may be 20
years or more, the absence of any controlled trials of
this duration means that we do not know whether statin
treament will lead to an increased rate of cancer in
coming decades.

Thus, millions of asymptomatic people are being treated
with medications, the ultimate effects of which are not
yet known. Drs. Newman and Hulley therefore recommended
that the new statins should be used for patients at very
high risk for coronary disease only, whereas such
treatment should be avoided for individuals with life
expectancies of more than 10 to 20 years. And healthy
people with a high cholesterol as the only risk marker
belong to that category.

***End of quoted material****

As I have the time and incliniation, I'll look at the
other links that you've provided. I'll tell you up front
that if they are of the same "quality" as the one hawking
Dr. Ravnskov's wares, I will stop bothering.

In the meanwhile, once one cuts through the smoke and
noise on the linked site, one finds that Dr. Ravnskov
agrees that the statins have been effective for doing what
they are advertised to do, but is disturbed by the fact
that they, **like virtually every other drug prescribed
today, and like many over the counter drugs** have risks
of side effects. This isn't news, although it does enable
folks like Dr. Ravnskov to make money selling books on the
premise that it is news.

Quoted message said:

www.thincs.org.

ti.ubc.caletter49.htmOpen ↗
ti.ubc.caletter48.htmOpen ↗
www.nofreelunch.org www.publiccitizen.org
www.redflagsweekly.com www.healthyskepticism.org

B'adant

Steve

Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal
advice, because we do not have an attorney-client
relationship, and should not be construed as either. This
posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but
is merely my personal view. ....

I'll bet your employer is damned relieved at that!

Well off to Medline!

Zee said:

NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

This input on Zocor and other Statins is overwhelming. I
should have done my own study prior to posting. I think I
will just stop the Zocor tonight. I have friends who
developed similar problems and they stopped all Statins.
Here is the funny part. They started of something called
Pliconisol (?) something like that and red yeast. My info
on red yeast is that is contains an unrefined form of a
statin and no certain amount. Guess what! Perfect
cholesterol, ldl and hdl with no problems. How about the
placebo affect? Matt

*******************************

There are risks here Matt, both with stopping statins cold
turkey, and with the supplements you have named. Please
inform yourself and discuss with a physician about how to
stop Zocor. I stopped cold. But then, I stopped cold
because Baycol was recalled. Very likely I continued with
buffered aspirin, as I use it regularly, but I don't
remember definitely.

Regarding the supplements, I would not use either of these
products. I am very wary of unregulated untested
medications (which I believe supplements are). Apart from
the aspirin, and a short trial on folate, I use none and
never have, not even vitamins. You of course, will make
your own decision.

Following is a study on stopping statins suddenly. I
suggest you consider it carefully, and discuss how you
will do what you have determined to do, with a
physician's help.

B'adant

Thromb Haemost. 2003 Sep;90(3):476-82. Related
Articles, Links

Platelet hyperactivity after statin treatment
discontinuation.

Puccetti L, Pasqui AL, Pastorelli M, Bova G, Di Renzo M,
Leo A, Cercignani M, Palazzuoli A, Auteri A, Bruni F.

Department of Clinical Medicine and Immunological
Sciences, Internal Medicine Division, Policlinico Le
Scotte, V. le Bracci, 53100, Siena, Italy.
[email hidden]

Hydroxymethyl-glutaryl-CoA-reductase inhibitors (statins)
reduce cardiovascular events by cholesterol lowering as
well as by non-lipid related actions. Among them, the
modulation of platelet activity could play a relevant role
in vascular protection. Furthermore withdrawal of statins
has been associated with increased cardiovascular event
rate. The aim of our study was to evaluate platelet
activity after cerivastatin discontinuation in eighteen
subjects that did not accept other drugs and in sixteen
subjects continuing treatment with simvastatin. Fourteen
subjects at the end of the discontinuation period decided
to receive other drugs (simvastatin) and they were
evaluted six weeks later. We measured complete lipid
profile by the chromogenic method (LDL-C was calculated);
oxidized-LDL (ox-LDL; ELISA), platelet P-selectin (P-sel)
expression (flow cytometry detection), platelet
aggregation (% change of transmitted light), intracellular
citrullin production (iCit; HPLC) as an indicator of
intracellular NO synthase activity at baseline and 7, 14,
28, 60 days after statin discontinuation. P-sel expression
and platelet aggregation were increased at 14 days (p <
0.001 and p < 0.05) in association with raised ox-LDL (r =
0.30, p < 0.05) and decreased iCit (r = 0.53, p < 0.01).
Increased LDL-C was related to P-sel and platelet
aggregation at 28 days (r = 0.30, p < 0.05). Subjects
continuing statin treatment had no significant changes of
P-sel at 28 (p = 0.221) and 60 days (p = 0.238). Subjects
treated with simvastatin after 60 days of diet showed a
significant reduction of P-sel and platelet aggregation
after six weeks of treatment (p < 0.01). Our data suggest
a platelet hyperactivation state in the second week after
statin discontinuation which is partially related to
raised LDL-C. Such a finding could participate in the
increased cardiovascular event rate after statin
discontinuation.

***************************

Quoted message said:

Zee said:

[email hidden] (Zee) wrote in message news:<e5f4a9c2-
[email hidden]>...

>NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message new-
>s:<[email hidden].-
>net>...
>
>
>>Thank you for sharing your experience. It would seem I
>>have been on every statin and other cholesterol
>>lowering drug since they came out. My Cholesterol is
>>168 and tri's around 260+. My mother had her
>>cholesterol checked when they started doing monitoring.
>>Her were always around 300. No diet, no exercise made
>>any difference. She refused medication as she perceived
>>her diet to be nearly perfect and would not take them.
>>She lived to be 94 with no drugs other that Allopurinol
>>and an occasional Aspirin. Matt
>>
>>
>>Zee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>NoSpamo~ <[email hidden]> wrote in message ne-
>>>ws:<[email hidden]-
>>>k.net>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have been taking Zocor since it came out. I now
>>>>have severe muscle pain with contractions. Foot pain
>>>>so bad I can't sleep. Eye problems that cause blurry
>>>>vision and no depth perception. I stopped it for
>>>>nearly two weeks and the problems got much better. My
>>>>doctor said I had to go back on it as those with
>>>>Diabetes had to be on it or they would die soon of
>>>>cardio disease. So I am back on it and the pain is
>>>>intense. The doctor said the Zocor would cure the leg
>>>>and foot pains but it has not. I also have
>>>>generalized weakness and fatigue. Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>Matt I suggest you contact Dr. Golomb's office about
>>>your difficulties with Zocor. The phone number is
>>>here. If you are unable to visit, she will talk with
>>>your physician. She did that for me. Her office will
>>>provide you with information about statin side
>>>effects. If you are not able to speak with her
>>>directly at first, ask for John.
>>>medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗
>>>
>>>I have had all the symptoms you talk about and more.
>>>All my symptoms were increased/returned on a short
>>>trial of Zocor Jan-Apr 2003, the last time I used a
>>>statin. I have permanent documented vision damage
>>>among other seemingly permanent damage.
>>>
>>>Statin caused muscle damage does not always show with
>>>elevated CK levels. You may need to have a muscle
>>>biopsy to determine that. Dr. Golomb's office can
>>>probably give you more information on that.
>>>
>>>I do not know about exercise, diet and diabetes, but I
>>>can tell you that diet and exercise affected my total
>>>cholesterol less than 1/3 and my ldl even less than
>>>that.
>>>
>>>If you wish contact me at [email hidden].
>>>Remove the Xs.
>>>
>>>B'adant
>
>
>Total cholesterol at end of 6 months long physical rehab
>ending 1997, 378; at which point I was started on
>statins, to include pravastatin, atorvastatin,
>cerivastatin and simvastatin.
>
>Total cholesterol as of Oct 3, 2003; 463--no medication.
>I include supplements in that category.
>
>The cholesterol numbers are as near as I can figure
>using the conversion of 39.97 times.
>
>I have no heart disease, below-to-normal blood pressure,
>and all the damage caused by statins which I have
>documented here. I have never used HRT, which at one
>time was touted to protect from cholesterol damage, and
>I am 61.
>
>At the time I was put on statins, at the end of the
>rehab, I was swimming 25 lengths of an Olympic length
>pool, "cross country skiing" 10 widths with pool weights
>and float belt, gym 45 minutes free weights, 5 mile run
>(last race 38 minutes) all 4 times a week; and 45
>minutes hill ramble/hike (typically 8 miles) once a
>week, and 10-15 mile cross country hike once or twice a
>month.
>
>I eat a whole food, omnivore diet weighted to chocolate.
>
>And I am putting this here on the record for anyone who
>thinks they have to take a toxic drug, lower cholesterol
>and get miserable in order to live. You don't
>
>B'adant

To clarify, and avoid any further damage to anyone who
may already have statin damage, I do not suggest one
attempt the exercise regime I undertook PRIOR to starring
statin therapy (wow! that one's better than jumbo
shrimp...where was I...)....

My point was: that person is who I was before I started
statins. Statins dropped me to my knees. So any theory
about not exercising and eating properly and just hucking
pills into my gob rather than taking responsibility is
akin to a cold flacid jackfish.

But this post is about Matt. Get thee to a physician me
boyo! One named Beatrice.

B'adant