.


And, her heart was fine, it was the emphysema from smoking that mainly did her in.


.

Not long ago we were taught to fear eating eggs, among a long list of other things.

So scientific to cling to favored results and past practice.

A situation repeated many times in the past. They love their illusion of omniscience and authority.

My Dad lived to almost 92. I'm 71, in good health barring some stealthy illness, lost 60 lbs, gave up booze and cigarettes, reformed my diet and beat gout in the last 6 years, all under no medical supervision whatsoever, other than a basal cell carcinoma removed from my back and a couple root canals. It is bracing at my age to have your joints get better. I give my lucky genes and my own self-discipline the credit for that, and I can tell you that it is very gratifying too.

I expect my lungs will get me too, smoking for more than 20 years. Pneumonia, the merciful. I had a nasty case of mycobacterial pneumonia in my fifties, good terrain in there for something to get started, but it's healed a lot since then, so not yet ...

Nice to see you around too.

And more difficult than you might think. Your self is a nasty little beggar, and devious.

My Mom's cholesterol was about 400 when I went to live with her during a job change. We got it down really fast, though. She was also a heavy smoker and died at the age of 79.

The time it takes to pop a pill is the least of the damage of this direct-to-consumer pharma marketing.

The brain makes and needs cholesterol to function properly. Take out cholesterol and.. ?

Never took them, never will. My cholestol was not even high I was just of that age and it was as a preventive cause you know old woman!!!! I asked about cholesterol and brain,and the doctor laughter - you know know old woman and such!

....of the arteries, causing higher blood pressure and forcing the heart to work harder.

As for the "direct to consumer pharma marketing", are you insinuating that its merely a moneymaking scheme? Are you aware now of the overall cost of Lipitor or other cholesterol medication to consumers? It's down to roughly $6.00 a month, that's twenty cents a day.

Muscle, nerve tissue damage, adult onset diabetes (serious shit here, folks), sexual dysfunction, serious liver dysfunction, memory loss, and pain.

A top ranking doc was a friend of my family's here in Chicago. He was pushing statins like they were magic beans for some Jack-dude. He did his best to convince my father and me to take the drug, and was even willing to give us prescriptions. We both refused, politely.

About 5 years ago, when he was 59, he dropped out and retired from medicine. Adult onset diabetes (badly controlled, despite his best professional efforts) serious memory loss (his wife told us sometimes he forgot why he left his room), and constant pain. I know that he over did it with Statins, but he was sold a pill bottle of lies, and he lost his profession as a result. The magic number is 59, folks. He was only 59.

A serious cost benefit analysis of Statins would find them off the market because of their lack of effect, and their dire, long term, unsolvable side-effects are a disaster.

The problem is to make a profit, the companies making statins pushed them for everyone who has elevated cholesterol, as oppose to getting people to exercise more (Exercise is the best way to reduce "bad" cholesterol).

Now, I have been on Statins for over 27 years and at the max dosage. My cholesterol started out at over 800 at age 30, with exercise that I am one of the few people who actually need a Statin. The Statins ended my angina and other heart problems. I have NOT notice the side affects. My sugar count did increase over that 27 year period so that I am now a diabetic, but it is controlled by pills.

Now, I admit I am the exception to the general rule, most people do NOT need to be on Statins, but some of us do need them, for the alternative is a massive heart attack before we turn 35.

Please note, the study only covered senior citizens, not younger people. Thus for people over age 65 with slightly elevated cholesterol, Statins appear to be overkill and as such useless in such people.

Statins save lives after a heart attack and if you have familial hypercholesterolemia, you need to take them.

My dad had a heart attack at 40. My cholesterol was 365 at age 28. I have been on stations for 20 years. I had a cardac calcium score of 0 just three years ago. I credit statina.

I forget which health journal convinced us.

check out all the studies online also saying low cholesterol can cause cancer.

More and more, as time goes by, he is found to be RIGHT!

eat fat to get slim.

I have diabetes type 2 and after I was diagnosed they gave me crestor. My grandson was just diagnosed and he can eat all the meat he wants. I was very surprised at the difference in treatment.

Had all my labs done before and after. I lost 40 pounds in 4 months.

But, after eating a diet rich in bacon, pork chops, steak, eggs, whole mik, and foundation veggies, my cholesterol, and triglycerides dropped considerably. No sugar, potatoes, fruit, pasta, bread or other "healthy" grains.

I was skeptical at first, but it made a believer out of me.

And I learned to read the labels on every food I bought. Almost EVERYTHING has sugar in it.

reading the article, it appears that the study is based on a retrospective analysis of data, which is open to a lot of errors.

Cholesterol by itself isn't necessarily the issue. What has been demonstrated in large double blind clinical trials is that lowering the LDL component of cholesterol does reduce ones risk of heart attacks and strokes.

If that cannot be done with diet alone, then it will be up to patient whether they subscribe to the risk/reward benefit of statin use

Posts in these threads are making assertions that are not correct. I am not going to debate it. People can make their own decisions, but in evidence based medicine, lowering the LDL will lower the risk of cardiovascular events

For example, myself. My cholesterol was over 800 when I was first tested when I was 30. I am the type of person who without Statin would be dead by age 35. On the other hand people over age 60 have long passed that age (age 35) so when they die of a heart attack, it may be do to something other then cholesterol and their slightly elevated cholesterol had little or nothing to do with the heart attack.

Just pointing out one problem of studies tying cholesterol with heart attacks. A person with very high cholesterol has a good chance of dying before age 35, while a normal person will live way beyond that age. People with just a slightly high level of cholesterol will survive into their senior years, and such people have no greater chance of a heart attack then a person with normal level of cholesterol. The very high cholesterol people just skews the numbers so much, more do to these exceptions to what is "Normal" then to anything just a slight increase in cholesterol is doing to the body. This study excludes people like myself who had super high cholesterol in their 20s, and that exclusion appears to bring the numbers down so much that it becomes clear that slightly high cholesterol has no affect on the rate of heart attacks.

trials it has been shown that statins lower the LDL, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular issues in all age groups.

Statins have literally been lifesavers for a large number of people

Your situation is probably related to genetic factors, and diet would not be very effective.

Statins are one of the most studied types of drugs, and their safety profile is very good, however, some people cannot tolerate statins, and for those people who cannot lower cholesterol through diet, there are still alternatives. Drugs like zeta, welchol and others can help.

Statins can have some very serious reactions in a small number of people, which is why periodic monitoring of CK, and liver enzymes at least in the beginning is necessary.

It has so been shown that in some people there is an increased risk for diabetes in those taking statins, which is why diet is still extremely important.

The newer PCSK9 inhibitors are very promising for those who cannot take statins, but also very expensive. Since they are so new, there still isn't sufficient data.

I would like to know about the under 60's.

I am seriously thinking about recommending to her to stop the practice. I think she has had a drop in cognitive function since she started taking them. I am definitely going to do more research. I stopped taking them last year after losing 80 pounds and dramatically changing my diet. That lowered my cholesterol to high end normal levels. My wife's family has a history of high cholesterol (wife's grandma, wife's mom, my wife, and my daughter).

alone that is what should be done. However, there are people where that does not work. Statins have been one of the most widely studied drugs on the market. In large double blind clinical trials it has been demonstrated that lowering the LDL will decrease the cardiovascular risk.

Medical advice given on a forum should be taken with a large grain of salt. What applies to one person may or may not apply to someone else.

You physician along with 2nd and 3rd opinions if needed should be utilized, with questions prepared.

Most important, people need to understand what evidence based medicine says verses anecdotal

If she is taking them at 18 she likely has an inherited cholesterol problem. Station use is a well documented life saver in people like that.

their memories are gone gone gone

and HAD to stop. The leg pain was awful. I lowered my cholesterol by cutting out grains and dairy. Cut it in half!

I took them for a while, I do not really have high cholesterol but Dr. said good idea anyway so I end up with some memory loss and underwent 2 arterial blockage incidents that could have killed me since one of them was a 98% blockage of the right carotid artery.. stopped a few years ago now... they don;t help at all and do cause as lot of unnecessary problems..

Happened to my father. He had always been borderline high cholesterol and the prescription was to monitor and watch his diet. Then they lowered the guidelines to start prescribing the medicines (I suspect in cahoots with the pharmaceutical companies) and put him on it even though his cholesterol levels hadn't changed. His kidneys failed and my parents couldn't believe how many people they met when they started dialysis whose kidneys had failed after they were put on statins as well. They were very angry.

The higher the dose, the higher the risk. Approximately 1-2 people out of 100,000 people taking statins

Rhabdomyolysis or milder forms of muscle inflammation from statins can be diagnosed with a blood test measuring CK, creatinine kinase. People taking statins should be periodically monitored for creatinine kinase.

Also, if a person taking statins develops muscle aches or weakness through the entire body, and or dark colored urine, that needs to be reported immediately

In addition, most of the cholesterol meds prescribed are generic, and very cheap.

There is also a small risk of adult onset type II diabetes from long term statin use.

Again it is an issue of risk verses reward as with anything

What about HDL, trigelcerides?...

I had an echocardiogram recently, while it doesn't show the health of the coronary arteries, it showed that left ventricular function (which is main pumping chamber of heart) was normal along with normal LV size....Isn't the heart typically enlarged when there is heart disease?...

I've taken statins for about a decade, namely to try to raise HDL...Before i took medication, all numbers but HDL were normal...And after all these years of medication, same thing, all numbers normal except HDL...

There is controversy whether elevated HDL is as beneficial as once believed.

If the LDL level can be controlled by diet alone, that is the best way to reduce the risk of cardiovascular issues.

Makes stuff "sticky" so build-ups appear in your heart plumbing.

That's one current theory, at least.

By the way, your name makes me want to try one!! Gee, I am so going to miss people here.

I repeat a very strong link...

there is a substantial increase in statin takers getting adult onset diabetes. Of course the drug houses skip over that, because they can now also sell you insulin and other drugs for your Type 2!

taking statins have all seen our A1c rise each year for the last 5 years. Mine went from 5.4 to 5.7 to 5.9 to 6.1 and is now at 6.4. My (our) weight has remained constant, and we haven't changed our diets. We're all normal weight and exercise regularly, eat well (minimum intake of sugars)... the lowest common denominator seems to be long-term use of statins.

It is well established that folks with diabetes and hypertension tend to require increased dosages of meds as years go by since numbers tend to climb....

you are much more likely to be harmed by statins through muscle damage than be helped according to this...

http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease/

The question that doctors hate when offering prescriptions is "What is the number needed to treat?"

*disclaimer - I am far from someone who thinks that evidence based medicine is wrong nor do I in anyway endorse "alternative medicine" as THE way to fix the current shortcomings in our current healthcare system. Often alternative medicine causes more harm. That said, I also think that we need a much more robust and research oriented strategy toward our understanding of health and pharmacology.

Cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease inflammation does.

like blood sugar and damage to muscles and even some effects on the brain. http://www.healthline.com/health/statins-why-do-they-cause-muscle-pain#StatinSideEffects4

I have eggs for breakfast almost every day, and my cholesterol level is exactly 170.

Here is the article:

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full?sid=cfb00014-f0a8-407d-ae71-a3278160ca49

And this is interesting - since it is an open source journal, they include all the reviews done of the paper and the names of the reviewers and the authors' responses for all versions through publication.

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.reviewer-comments.pdf

I wonder if some medical research person here could translate these reviewer comments. I was a little surprised at their tone but maybe it is normal for top journals.

I was told I'd be dead by the time I was 35 if I didn't go on statin drugs. Cholesterol was abt. 300 at that time. I told them no thanks and I'm still around some 20+ years later.

I was told again that I needed to take these at once when cholesterol hit 350. I again refused.

Today it is around 230 or so.

and you know what? I don't give a damn!

A friend of mine w/MS took them and they made his pain from horrible to severe so he stopped too.

Who needs more pain when you already have it?

& recommend.

Congratulations for standing up for yourself!

We must be our own best advocates.

When I think of all of the horrific junk, some of which has fatal side-effects that go with them and have not been studied long, I am especially truly appalled!

Again, glad you stood your ground as we all must in this era where the pharmaceutical companies call most of the shots.

development of Type 2 diabetes in adults.

You don't want that! Come to think of it, I had an uncle with type #2 diabetes too. He was low in weight, never drank nor smoked in his life but he had a real crummy diet. What caused him to have heart disease and type #2 is a mystery to me. He lived to be 70 years old and died of a massive heart attack.

The thing about statins is (which kept me away from them due to on again/off again health insurance issues), you can never stop taking them once you start as it is my understanding that your cholesterol numbers are all over the place after you quit taking them, hence the reason you have to keep taking them like it or not (and scary as hell too!). Glad we never believed the hype and did those evil statin drugs!



Good thing we never fell for this bull. Take care!

even though they'd told us for decades it did. Even worse, HRT leads to an increase in cancer, heart attack, and strokes.

Statins in fact do lower incidence of coronary disease, just not by lowering cholesterol.

The study didn't look at statins, so the conclusion is thoroughly erroneous. It is well known by cardiologists that decreasing endothelial (inner lining of blood vessels) inflammation is the mechanism of statin effectiveness, not cholesterol lowering...

I know such a person and I suspect the statin thing is not increasing his life expectancy.

but yet my Cholesterol numbers are right where the doctors say they should be.

There is no way will I ever take a statin, simple as that. I've read and heard too many horror stories concerning them.

.. choose your grandparents very carefully!

... DUH. If you are taking statins you are a dupe.