Cholesterol, statins and all that nonsense

[andydude]

The Hub is not a good place to get medical advice.

 

And neither is the medical profession I'm sorry to say. They just follow research and papers sponsored and pushed by big pharma.

[Joe Low]

And neither is the medical profession I'm sorry to say. They just follow research and papers sponsored and pushed by big pharma.

I think i will go with that over the Hub.

 

There are plenty of intelligent people questioning what the pharmaceutical companies are doing that curb the abuses.

 

But, by and large, those companies come up with products that work - otherwise they wouldnt be where they are.

 

Definitely the gps didnt tell me of statin side-effects - which i thought was pretty bad, but my pharmacist did. Its imperfect but its the best we've got.

[TopFuel]

Side effects of statins for 5 years: 0.6% to 1.5% were harmed by developing diabetes, 10% were harmed by muscle damage.

Benefits of statins for 5 years: 98% saw no benefit 0% were saved from death 1.6% were helped by preventing heart attack.

S/effects def outweigh benefits.

Source? I have data from the Cochrane collaboration which wholly contradicts those claims.

Risk factors for heart disease: Don't check overall cholesterol, check fasting glucose, triglycerides and HDL

http://dietheartnews...-heart-disease/

Not the most reliable source IMHO.

High cholesterol is not a bad thing per se. I got this tweet from Tim Noakes ‏@ProfTimNoakes In reply to my question. "Your real risk factors - blood glucose, insulin, weight, blood pressure, inflammation. Check LDL-particle size and number."

Again, that does not mean that high cholesterol is not implicated in atherosclerosis. It just means that those other risk factors may be considered first before cholesterol. This is also in his opinion (which is quite a controversial one), and one must be discerning and read evidence oneself before agreeing to such claims, not simply because he's Prof. Noakes

And neither is the medical profession I'm sorry to say. They just follow research and papers sponsored and pushed by big pharma.

That is a very broad, and largely untrue statement I'm afraid. I'm not denying that it doesn't happen, but certainly not EVERYTHING. Many very reputable studies are not sponsored by big pharma, and even if they are: a discerning, educated individual can still decide if the quality of the study is up to standard and worth basing clinical judgement on.

[TALUS]

 

 

And neither is the medical profession I'm sorry to say. They just follow research and papers sponsored and pushed by big pharma.

That is a pathetic statement. You can sue the pants off any Dr or company that you can prove gave you treatment that was harmfull. How do you sue alternative health quacks (or Hubbers for that matter)? If ever you have time - do some reading on how a Beta trail for drugs get clinical and statistical validation. Its definately not a weedhead that sits in the bush humming and finding a fantastic new cure that only the web and Huisgenoot knows about.... Do know how pathetic it is if you say "They only follow research...." and you want it make it out to be negative - what do you prefer : reading the stars?

[Guest Latent Blue]

 

And neither is the medical profession I'm sorry to say. They just follow research and papers sponsored and pushed by big pharma.

 

Be shortsighted much?

[r0adrunner]

Very good read.