General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Kendrick on Liquid Drano

Started by mfg · · Last activity · 8 posts · 361 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
8 November 2003
Last activity
15 November 2003
Original author
mfg
Posts
8
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
361
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–8 of 8
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.redflagsweekly.com/kendrick/2003_nov06.html

    November 6, 2003

    LIQUID DRANO-LIKE SYNTHETIC "GOOD CHOLESTEROL" PLAQUE BUSTER! IT'S
    SCIENCE, BUT NOT AS WE KNOW IT

    By RFD Columnist Malcolm Kendrick MbChB, MRCGP (email -
    [email hidden] )

    Synthetic 'Good' Cholesterol Helps Clear Arteries

    Small Study Indicates the Possibility That Drug Therapy Could Reverse
    Heart Disease. Rob Stein Nov 5th 2003

    ‘A synthetic form of "good" cholesterol has been shown to quickly
    shrink blockages clogging coronary arteries, offering for the first
    time the possibility of a drug that could actually rapidly reverse
    heart disease, researchers reported yesterday….'

    I'm writing a book at the moment called Cholesterolmania. That plus a
    job, plus children and home, an attempt at a social life and columns
    at redflagsdaily.com. That's a tad busy, and I thought I'd take a
    short break from column writing, but…I couldn't let the above story
    from the Washington Post go without comment.

    Here is my immediate response. Aaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh! Thud.

    It's almost impossible to know where to start without ranting.
    Firstly, just to clear something up, HDL is not cholesterol ‘good' or
    otherwise. HDL, stands for High Density Lipoprotein. It is a
    lipoprotein that is manufactured in the guts and the liver, and it
    contains a small amount of cholesterol.

    HDL appears to have two basic functions in the body. Firstly, it
    transfers proteins, known as apolipoproteins, to VLDL, allowing the
    VLDL to be recognised by receptors around the body. Secondly, it
    removes cholesterol that is floating about and takes it back to the
    liver.

    When cells do break down in body, which is happening all the time, the
    cholesterol from cell walls is released into the surrounding extra
    cellular fluid. The HDL lurking in the vicinity ‘mops up' this excess
    cholesterol and transfers it back to the liver. This scavanged
    cholesterol is then used in the manufacture of Very Low Density
    Lipoproteins VLDLs. VLDLs contain two basic ingredients, fats (in the
    form of triglyderides) and cholesterol.

    VLDLs are then sent back out into the bloodstream. As VLDLs lose
    triglycerides they shrink in size, becoming Low Density Lipoproteins
    LDLs (otherwise known as ‘bad' cholesterol – for some stupid reason).
    LDLs are then absorbed by cells that need cholesterol, and the
    cholesterol is unpacked and used to build various structures within
    the cell, including the cell wall.

    Which means that HDLs are part of a re-cycling mechanism for
    cholesterol. At the risk of repeating myself, the liver manufactures
    cholesterol and sends it out within VLDLs. As VLDLs lose triglyceride
    – which provides energy for cells around the body - they shrink into
    LDLs, and LDLs are then absorbed into cells where the cholesterol is
    unpacked.

    When a cell then dies, it releases cholesterol, which is mopped up by
    HDL and transferred back to the liver. This is not immensely complex,
    but for some reason, mainstream researchers have decided that HDL can,
    in some way, protect against the build up of atherosclerosis.

    There are two reasons for this, I think. Firstly, because a low HDL
    level seems to be an important risk factor for CHD, even more so than
    a raised LDL level (So surely it must be doing something…Duh!)
    Secondly, because it has been noted that, as HDL does indeed transfer
    cholesterol from around cells and back to the liver, it is thought
    that this reverse cholesterol transport might, in some way, be able to
    suck cholesterol out of atherosclerotic plaques.

    In answer to the first piece of stupidity. If VLDL levels go up HDL
    automatically goes down, it's all to do with the transfer of
    apolipoproteins from HDL to VLDL. The raised VLDL itself is caused by
    underlying insulin resistance – one of the basic causes of heart
    disease. So a low HDL is merely a ‘marker' for raised VLDL, which
    itself is a marker for insulin resistance. A low HDL by itself causes
    nothing and prevents nothing.

    With regard to the reverse cholesterol transport nonsense. HDL cannot,
    I repeat cannot, remove cholesterol from atherosclerotic plaques. It
    is impossible for this to happen. The cholesterol in a plaque is not
    ‘floating free' in the extra cellular fluid. It is trapped in a solid
    atherosclerotic lump. HDL is completely and utterly incapable of
    getting at it, and even if it could, it could not separate it out from
    the surrounding plaque structure. HDL is a passive inanimate chemical.
    It cannot carry out complex tasks.

    The concept that HDL could remove cholesterol from a plaque is such a
    stupid idea that I cannot believe it still exists. Once you understand
    the science, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

    If synthetic HDL can reduce the size of plaques then I will eat my
    hat. What these researchers are seeing, probably, is what all
    researchers see. Most plaques, if left alone, do gradually reduce in
    size – a bit. Alternatively, they have been looking at their findings
    with eyes of faith. Let's just see if anyone else can verify these
    results.

    P.S. In the Heart Protection Study (HPS), a major study in which the
    rate of deaths was reduced in patients taking a statin (simvastatin),
    at post-mortem, the people who had been taking the statin had bigger
    and more complex plaques than those who had not. In reality, the size
    of the plaque does not actually have anything to do with how dangerous
    it is.

  2. [email hidden] (mfg) wrote in part:

    Quoted message said:

    What these researchers are seeing, probably, is what all
    researchers see. Most plaques, if left alone, do gradually reduce in
    size – a bit.

    The above is a most peculiar statement, especially when applied to the results
    of a double-blind study.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

  3. I'm not sure what your point is. On Wednesday I posted:

    But also keep in mind that these are phase II results in a small group
    for a short period of time. The measure was change in atheroma size.
    And while the change in atheroma volume was statistically significant, it
    does not seem too huge. From the study:
    The absolute reduction in atheroma volume in the combined treatment
    groups was -14.1 mm3 or a 4.2% decrease from baseline (P<.001).

    [Or an average change from 336mm3 to 322mm3]

    So there are more questions to be answered such as:
    For longer treatment periods, does the atheroma keep shrinking?
    Is the effect permanent, or is ongoing treatment required?
    Do patients eventually become tolerant of the treatment requiring larger
    doses or losing all effect?
    And the big one - do morbidity and mortality change?

    The nature of science and product development is to be skeptical and
    curious. Create a study to answer a question; in this case, does the
    administration of an HDL construct change plaque volume (which might be
    related to infarction risk). Then find alternate hypotheses for the
    observations and test those possibilities. Like any good study, it
    creates more questions to be answered (see above).

    The column you posted effectively says the author does not beleive that
    the compound will work and since it did, then it must be the rose colored
    glasses of the observers. A good critical evaluation would have posed
    questions that would lead to a clearer understanding of the
    effectiveness.

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

    Quoted message said:

    I'm not sure what your point is. On Wednesday I posted:

    Then why answer? You seem to have a habit of responding to posts where
    you don't know what the question OR the answer is:

    From a post on another board asking about possible lipitor induced
    muscle pain and lack of growth, with Nigel's ignorant answer
    reproduced here.

    If you really want to "rule out/naildown" Lipitor as the cause simply
    stop taking it. Over a few weeks, if you do not see an increase in
    strength and muscle mass, it is likely not the cause of your problems.

    Do YOU know how to use google?

    I was a triathlete until I took lipitor. I have yet to recover. as you
    are so glib to tell this unfortunate individual WILL happen. Muscle
    wasting, pain and weakness is the myopathy we have tried to tell you
    about. Not only have you not experienced it or seen it, apparently,
    you have also not done any research on it, yet you think you are
    qualified to tell this person lipitor is not the cause of his problem.
    Having lived through the SAME problem, I think it is.

    Try something hard Nigel. If you don't have the goods on something,
    don't answer. Do you have any idea what you may have inflicted on this
    man?

    I do.

    MFG

  5. MFG,

    You come across as someone who is bitter and angry that they suffered an
    adverse reaction to a drug. It is unforunate that this happened, but it is
    the nature of probablity - it is unlikely, but will happen occasionally.

    Now you think the world should drop everything to fix your problem.

    As you are so fond of putting it; try something hard. Get over your anger
    and move on. Try doing something positive. If you really care about your
    problem, endow a research chair at your local university to study the
    problem. Volunteer for research. Donate your body to science. The
    options are limited only by your imagination.

    But for now you are just bitter and angry. Welcome to the kill file.

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

    Nigel said: Volunteer for research.

    I think she already did. ZEE

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

    Quoted message said:

    MFG,

    You come across as someone who is bitter and angry that they suffered an
    adverse reaction to a drug. It is unforunate that this happened, but it is
    the nature of probablity - it is unlikely, but will happen occasionally.

    Now you think the world should drop everything to fix your problem.

    As you are so fond of putting it; try something hard. Get over your anger
    and move on. Try doing something positive. If you really care about your
    problem, endow a research chair at your local university to study the
    problem. Volunteer for research. Donate your body to science. The
    options are limited only by your imagination.

    But for now you are just bitter and angry. Welcome to the kill file.

    $tatin$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Nigel said: endow a research chair at your local university

    I don't think social services will let me do that Nigel. And
    whoooeee...I do recognize bitter and angry when I see it, and you've
    got the patent on that.

    I'm not angry Nigel. I just don't write like a wuss. Nigel.

    MFG

  8. Nigel said:

    MFG,

    You come across as someone who is bitter and angry that they suffered an
    adverse reaction to a drug.


    Seems reasonable. I'd be upset too. Especially given how "safe" they
    are supposed to be. Maybe they're not as safe as we are led to believe
    from all the big-money propaganda.

    Quoted message said:

    Get over your anger and move on.


    Very easy for you to say.

    Quoted message said:

    Try doing something positive.


    mfg IS doing something positive by bring us a different, and very
    informative view.

    Quoted message said:

    Volunteer for research.


    It would seem that a lot of research is needed for mfg to post the
    results we see. Thanks, mfg.

    Quoted message said:

    Donate your body to science.


    We all do that when we take heavily promoted drugs, like Baycol, for
    example.

    Quoted message said:

    But for now you are just bitter and angry. Welcome to the kill file.


    Not just bitter and angry, but giving very useful information to all
    of us. Rather nice, I'd say.

    You seem a bit upset too - enough to use the kill file.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.