Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?

[Ralph Lotz]

Read about this long overdue startling revelation here:

Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?
Research suggests that, except among high-risk heart patients, the benefits of statins such as Lipitor are overstated
By John Carey

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... _top+story

[Ralph Lotz]

"For one thing, many researchers harbor doubts about the need to drive down cholesterol levels in the first place. Those doubts were strengthened on Jan. 14, when Merck and Schering-Plough (SGP) revealed results of a trial in which one popular cholesterol-lowering drug, a statin, was fortified by another, Zetia, which operates by a different mechanism. The combination did succeed in forcing down patients' cholesterol further than with just the statin alone. But even with two years of treatment, the further reductions brought no health benefit. "
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... _top+story

ZERO HEALTH BENEFIT from lowering cholesterol
NADA
ZILCH

The feeble benefits from statins are that THEY INCREASE VITAMIN D LEVELS.
Vitamin D:

1) does not block COQ10 production (statins do)
2) does not activate genes that destroy muscle (statins do) IS YOUR HEART A MUSCLE?
3) 5,000 IU Vitamin D caps cost 6 pennies a day - LIPITOR costs $2.50 to $3 a day
4) 7.62x39mm AK-47 cartridge 11 cents

[DanSco]

Vitamin D:

1) does not block COQ10 production (statins do)
2) does not activate genes that destroy muscle (statins do) IS YOUR HEART A MUSCLE?
3) 5,000 IU Vitamin D caps cost 6 pennies a day - LIPITOR costs $2.50 to $3 a day
4) 7.62x39mm AK-47 cartridge 11 cents

I'm a big fan of Vitamin D too.

I really don't see the relevance of 7.62x39 prices, but your quoted price is low by a factor of 2. It's hard to find anything below 20 cents each and at that you have to buy 1,000 of them to get that price.

[fitzgerald]

It's called a sense of humour Dan, maybe your American?

"You can't argue with feelings"!

[Ralph Lotz]

We 13th generation Americans know where to buy our ammo.
It's right next door to where they sell the tea, about 300 yards north of where they have hidden the Constitution under a rock. (Not Plymouth Rock)

Day after day year after year people come to this forum asking questions about cholesterol because they have been brainwashed into believing that cholesterol causes heart attacks.

Yes, Wright saw, the drugs can be life-saving in patients who already have suffered heart attacks, somewhat reducing the chances of a recurrence that could lead to an early death. But Wright had a surprise when he looked at the data for the majority of patients, like Winn, who don't have heart disease. He found no benefit in people over the age of 65, no matter how much their cholesterol declines, and no benefit in women of any age. He did see a small reduction in the number of heart attacks for middle-aged men taking statins in clinical trials. But even for these men, there was no overall reduction in total deaths or illnesses requiring hospitalization—despite big reductions in "bad" cholesterol. "Most people are taking something with no chance of benefit and a risk of harm," says Wright. Based on the evidence, and the fact that Winn didn't actually have angina, Wright changed his mind about treating him with statins—and Winn, too, was persuaded. "Because there's no apparent benefit," he says, "I don't take them anymore."

CHOLESTEROL-PHOBIA is the biggest con since the Federal Reserve.
This article shows the fraud in cold hard numbers.
A business magazine.
Where has Scientific American been for the last 50 years?

Have you read the article yet?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 092994.htm?

The Cholesterol Myths
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

The Cure
http://www.hearttechnology.com

[VanCanada]

...Day after day year after year people come to this forum asking questions about cholesterol because they have been brainwashed into believing that cholesterol causes heart attacks.

...CHOLESTEROL-PHOBIA is the biggest con since the Federal Reserve.

Well said, Ralph.

Remind me again dear Owen, why is total cholesterol important to the 999 in 1000 of us without Apolipoprotein B mutations brought about by familial hypercholesterolemia? (Or those "n" per 1000 with total cholesterol under 325 or 350 or so? {once again, the great majority of us})

Isn't this a non-issue? Shouldn't our question to people emailing you be "Do you have familial hypercholesterolemia?" rather than asking people what their total cholesterol is?

[ofonorow]

Total cholesterol is a single, easy to determine (& probably accurate), and a totally objective measure of vitamin C intake.

Thank you Emil Ginter! http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=152


This work, and others, as reported by Linus Pauling in How To Live Longer and Feel Better (1986), is that @ "optimal" vitamin C intake, total cholesterol in humans will "normalize" to 180 mg/dl.

I was not the only one who fixated on this finding in Pauling's book (after a life insurance exam many years ago reported that my total cholesterol was EXACTLY 180 mg/dl.) See: A Bomb Physicists letter: http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/jorgensen.htm

Another effect of ascorbic acid must be mentioned. The level of cholesterol in a persons blood varies inversely with the level of the ascorbic acid in the blood. When I learned of this I decided to perform an experiment on myself. My cholesterol level had been running at 240 units for several years. My doctor told me he could give me a drug to lower the cholesterol level but he was afraid of the damage that might be done by the drug. An experiment had been reported that a person's cholesterol level depended on the amount of white sugar ingested. With this information in mind, I decided to eliminate sucrose in my diet as much as I could in our culture while I arbitrarily set my intake of ascorbic acid at five gram per day. Much to my doctor's surprise, my cholesterol level fell from 240 units down to 180 units. I know of similar experiments with similar results. Also I have not had a cold since I have been taking the larger amount of ascorbic acid.

Which by the way, shows that excellent experimental science can produce very reliable and trustworthy results. A rare thing indeed, so your negative reaction to it is puzzling, to say the least....

The key, by the way is "normalize." The higher the cholesterol, the further it will drop, but may not reach 180 mg/dl. Low cholesterol will increase, etc.

There are genetic abnormalities, or course, but for perhaps 99% of the population, knowing the total cholesterol number can provide important incite whether the person is consuming an optimal level of vitamin C.

[jknosplr]

An experiment had been reported that a person's cholesterol level depended on the amount of white sugar ingested. With this information in mind, I decided to eliminate sucrose in my diet as much as I could in our culture while I arbitrarily set my intake of ascorbic acid at five gram per day. Much to my doctor's surprise, my cholesterol level fell from 240 units down to 180 units. I know of similar experiments with similar results.

maybe its cutting the white sugar from your diet. I had similar results reducing white sugars to zero and losing the refined carbs. My LDL pattern went from B to A, Tri's went to 48 from 70, along with reduction of other lipids. I also reduced C to 2 grams/day from 18.

[VanCanada]

(I tried posting the following in the 'Help" subforum but I received an error message.)

Owen, in the recent post in this 'Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?' thread,

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5368&p=30248#p30248

(posted Aug 26, 2012 7:00 am)

you posted the following:

Re: Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?
Total cholesterol is a single, easy to determine (& probably accurate), and a totally objective measure of vitamin C intake.

Thank you Emil Ginter! http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=152

I followed the link and it worked. I noticed that the last post in that thread had been made on April 4, 2006.

I then went to the list of all threads in the Clinical Studies subforum and noticed that the thread you were referring to was not listed at all. It seems there had been a limit to the number of threads showing in that subforum.

My questions are, are there other threads like this that are working but are not being displayed in the list of threads? Can we archive those "lost" or "hidden" threads, for research and posterity's sake? Thanks.

[ofonorow]

I too have had problems posting after the upgrade. We may be approaching some internal limits - by trying to keep everything forever.. Worked just now..

[eDOC]

In all my med career never prescribed a cholesterol lowering drug.

[ofonorow]

In all my med career never prescribed a cholesterol lowering drug.

Congrats Sir! Now if we could start educating more doctors...


And if not in this thread, some thread, there was a comment about "my 180 mg/dl" cholesterol. I am sorry, I was not trying to brag. I was trying to convey my astonishment that a 1971 (or 1986) book could have that number as the level of total cholesterol when a human takes a lot of vitamin C.

When I found out my number exactly matched what was written in Pauling's book, it gave me all sorts of confidence in Pauling, in the science he cites, in Ginter, etc.

And why no error? Why 180 mg/dl and not 179 or 181 mg/dl? Just astonishing. And when 100-year-old Theodore Jorgensen reported the exact same thing, almost too weird. Anyway, this is why I believe that you can use the total cholesterol number to help determine if one is taking "enough" vitamin C.

[eDOC]

Dr. Owen i'm not kidding. An elderly man who suffered a stroke, came to Orl. from Ill. for treatment. He was on a Cholesterol lowering drug despite his Cholesterol & it's sub fractions were perfect.

I called the Cardiologist who treated him earlier & his reply was that I was right but it's mandatory by AHA to put any patient who has suffered a stroke on such drugs...... Prophylactic.

Does it make sense......it's a joke.

We docs don't want to try to cure people rather make a person with disease more diseased.......

[Johnwen]

Here's the AHA advisory on this. They been pushing these poisions since 2004.
As you'll see they use fudged figures to justify their ignorance.
EXAMPLE:

coronary events, stroke, or revascularization) was reduced by 21% (absolute risk reduction, 1% per year; number needed to treat 102 to prevent 1 event each year).

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/35/4/1023.full

TO ME I believe all stroke patients be evaluated and placed on coumarin type therapy till the cause and origin has been identified. Yes there is some who it would do more harm then good thats why they need to be evaluated. Bottom line: Fix the problem!! Pushing liver busters isn't going to fix anything, just add to the problems!!!!

[eDOC]

At least it doesn’t make sense to me to prescribe an elderly man whose half side is already weak, can barely walk with support a drug that causes muscle weakness.......

The cause of his stroke was HTN & the Cardio had prescribed an anti hypertensive that could not cross BBB.

He suffered an episode of thrombotic stroke & should have been placed on a blood thinner after checking his INR, which he was not on.

Of course blood thinners are contraindicated if he had a hemorrhagic stroke.

Most of us are great at seminars, posting articles/researches, but sorry to say clinically on ground quite a few are pathetic.

My thoughts.