son of witless wrote:
My issue is with Cholesterol medications. I don't have a problem with trying to keep numbers low and I think if you have a history of heart disease you got to do what you got to do. However, they put healthy people in their early 30s on medication. I do not agree with that. I know two people who were put on Lipitor and had serious side affects. Again if you have had a heart attack or blockage then take the stuff. For the rest of us fish pills and red yeast rice should be the first line.
No I am not a doctor, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn once.
My issue is with Cholesterol medications. I don't ... (
show quote)
Wit, I love your last line. I've stayed at a lot of them attending and giving sminars.
You are assuming that the information you have been taught is true and accurate.
The record in treatment of almost all diseases is atrocious.
Take heart disease.
Cardiologists have tried many approaches. Let’s first look at what they are up to.
First the surgeons started doing a surgery they called “Poudrage”. This was developed to create more blood vessels and therefore more blood to the heart.
It involved cracking the chest, cutting the pericardium open to expose the heart, then dusting pure talc on the exposed heart. The talc would rub against the heart and pericardium creating a constant injury. The purpose was to cause a chronic irritation of the heart and thereby triggering a constant repair effort by the body. This required the body to build a large number of blood vessels to nourish the repair effort and thereby bring more blood to the heart.
Result was that that 79% of patients who underwent this procedure reported more energy, less angina pain, more bodily strength and endurance.
Then a brave doctor in Texas did all the steps of this procedure EXCEPT sprinkling talc on the heart muscle. In other words he opened them up, and closed them back up. NOTHING ELSE. He did this on 50 patients. Result 80% of the patients who underwent this procedure reported more energy, less angina pain, more bodily strength, and more endurance. That was the death knell for POUDRAGE.
Then they developed a procedure called "an Angiogram". This involved injecting a radio-opaque dye into a heart artery. As the heart muscle worked they would take x-rays and at the point that the artery contracted it would sometimes, on one of the films look like something was blocking the dye's passage and it was decided that the artery had clogged up and SINGLE BYPASS SURGERY was invented. A piece of vein (not the same as artery) was used to bypassed the “clogged “ part of the artery. Result was that 79% of patients who underwent this procedure reported more energy, less angina pain, more bodily strength and endurance.
Then on finding “other clogged arteries”, the surgeons started doing 2, 3, 4, even 5 bypasses on the same patient. Result was that 79% of patients who underwent this procedure reported more energy, less angina pain, more bodily strength. and endurance.
Then after doing this for about 30 years with “great success” They discovered it didn’t work after all. So that is almost never done anymore.
Next came the “stint”. Same results, was that 79% of patients who underwent this procedure reported more energy, less angina pain, more bodily strength and endurance.
Now what about medication for the heart. It is more or less the same story, though much less expensive, and a lot less immediate damage done to the body, and a lot less lifetime residual pain than the surgical procedures often leave the patient with.
And they will often make a big, near immediate, chang in weakness, difficult breathing and other symptoms.
But the side effects result in an average of 25% more patients dying than if no treatment is rendered except during emergencies.
Now I would like to address the 25% more deaths I mention above. It is not as bad as it sounds. On average about 2 patients will die of heart failure each year. 25% of 2 is ½. So what we are talking about is only ½ of a patient extra each year.
Back to Cholesterol.
Remember they developed a procedure called "an Angiogram". This involved injecting a radio-opaque dye into a heart, which seemed to show a blockage or at least a partial blockage. What could cause that. Well cholesterol is used by the body to make the arterial walls smooth and slick, expediting the flow of blood. What caused the scars? Well, at certain points in the artery, say at a junction with another artery or at a sharp curve there would be some temporary swirling and hesitation of the flow. Many people drink alcohol. Alcohol is a good degreaser.
At the hesitation/swirl points it or certain other chemicals could wash away the protective cholesterol covering and cause an irritating injury which might heal by scarification. Now the body would place layer upon layer of cholesterol over that to smooth things out. This was called a cholesterol plaque and blamed for blocking the artery.
Back about 25 years ago, one of the Pharma Companies wanted to have a film to show on T.V. The advertising agencies for the drug companies do this sometimes to help sell the products. You have surely watched one of these “documentaries”. Anyway , they hired a famous photographer to make a film showing the inside of an artery. As the camera moved slowly down the inside of this artery, you could see cholesterol plaques on the walls of the artery, until !!!
THERE WAS THAT BIG ONE BLOCKING THE ARTERY! You could see it for yourself. GOTCHA!
But what were you really seeing? The inside of a section of pig gut, with cotton batten glued here and there and then blocking the end point.
As I said before Cholesterol is needed in the body for good health. The Pharmaceutical Company producing cholesterol lowering drugs advertise to you and your doctor the benefits they claim will result from use of their drug. Not the fact that lowering your Cholesterol could do you harm.
What about "bad cholesterol"? Well, what about it. Does it really exist? Why do some people "have it"?
Talk it over with your doctor. BTW since these things are so important to you and your loved ones, I suggest that you always get at least 2 more opinions.
In 1968 the letter carriers union was paying for letter carrier’s wives surgery if she needed an Hysterectomy. They discovered that there were a lot more hysterectomies being done than expected. So the union demanded a second opinion. That resulted in 25% fewer surgeries in the next year.. So the Union demanded a 3'd opinion. An additional 25% less surgeries needed. (Why they didn’t demand a 4th opinion and so on until only those hysterectomy really needed were left I don’t know. )