Statins, Are They The Same?

[katana]

Sorry to sound cynical but it sounds like another medical miracle myth to me to boost drug sales.

Statins are big business and reap drug companies billions of dollars but whether the benefits actually outweigh the advantages of taking statins for the majority of people is an open question.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that statins are not necessary for many who are prescribed it.

The cholesterol myth makes very interesiting reading.

That was my opinion as well. In the 1990s I also remember there was a heavy marketing campaign for another drug, Prozac. It was even being claimed it could increase creativity at the time.

[Jingthing]

What Prozac has to do with statins is beyond me!

[rijb]

Could statins boost your bedroom performance?

There have been a lot of news reports on statins, particularly Crestor, lately. A new study, media reported, suggests that Crestor can help apparently healthy people with normal body weight to reduce heart risk. But should we jump start taking statins? The medicine does not come without side effects.

Statins are well known to effectively lower cholesterol, which is believed to be the culprit for heart disease although experts have said it clearly that this type of medicine works well in people with underlying heart conditions, but not in healthy people simply because the risk reduction in healthy people is not that significant.

After all, we have quite some alternatives available to be readily used to reduce not just cholesterol, but directly cut the risk of developing heart disease and stroke. For instance, Dr. Dean Ornish's diet along with his lifestyle program works in 99.999 percent of people to stop plaque buildup in arteries or even reverse the progression. By the way, don't think you have no problem with artery blockage. Evidence shows that as many as 70 percent of healthy young people may have their artery blocked to certain degree.

Those who feel uncomfortable with the cheap dietary invention and are reluctant to follow the famous Ornish's diet and lifestyle program may still try to take some supplements like vitamin D and red yeast rice, which have been known to be very effective in lowering cholesterol. Just remember that cholesterol is not the only risk factor that is involved in heart disease.

As mentioned early, statins can help people with heart condition and there is no doubt about it. For those people, the benefits may well outweigh the risks.

Still there is one possible benefit which may not be well known to many people. Taking statins may boost sexual performance in men with erectile dysfunction (ED).

At least one study by Ferrer E and colleagues from Prous Science in Barcelona, Spain and published in the Jan 2007 issue of Drugs Today suggests that statins have emerged as a promising therapeutic option due to their multiple modes of action.

Ferrer et al. writes in their report that ED is a disorder involving impairment of the vascular endothelium and is associated with cardiovascular disease. They say not all phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors may help patients with ED.

They suggest that "The use of statins as adjuvant or alternative therapy in erectile dysfunction has opened new avenues for the treatment of this disorder."

The possible use of statins in men with ED is not far-fetching. Miner M and Billups KL from Brown University in Swansea, MA reviewed previous studies and found that Ed is linked to hyperlipidemia/dyslipidemia. Statins can modify the blood conditions and thus at least theoretically they may help men with ED.

But no one should venture to start taking statins for that possible effort because of the efficacy and safety issues. Still, there are many things men can do to improve their performance. Physical exercise, vitamin C, peanuts or arginine supplements, omega 3 fatty acids and garlic are some foods that men can eat to boost their performance in bedroom.

By Sue Mueller

Edited November 18, 2008 by rijb

[rak sa_ngop]

Could statins boost your bedroom performance?

Still there is one possible benefit which may not be well known to many people. Taking statins may boost sexual performance in men with erectile dysfunction (ED).

Speaking from personal experience I was achieving stronger and longer lasting erections 24 hours after starting on Crestor.The few times I have stopped taking Crestor the performance of the old fella returned to normal On restarting the medication, the beneficial effects reappeared.

I even asked the doctor about this (as I was taking iron tablets as well) and he confirmed that Crestor was likely to be responsible. I am 55 and take 10 mg Crestor daily. I have never tried other statins and my cholesterol levels are "medium risk".

[katana]

What Prozac has to do with statins is beyond me!

It was an example of another drug companies were allegedly hyping to boost drug sales, and added to the points made by tolley and jhc. But if you are happy taking statins, that's good for you.

[Jingthing]

What Prozac has to do with statins is beyond me!

It was an example of another drug companies were allegedly hyping to boost drug sales, and added to the points made by tolley and jhc. But if you are happy taking statins, that's good for you.

Happy isn't the word I would use. It was a medical decision as I followed the advise of a trusted doctor. I have heard for years that many docs in the US are taking statins themselves, even if their chol numbers OK.

To the guy who suggested a raw foods/vegan/whatever diet, that is all well and good, but the real life reality is that only a very small minority of people will ever follow such a radical diet, and even then no guarantee you don't have genetic factors.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Jingthing

[billp]

The thing is, millions of people have been taking statins for decades now, and the drugs have certainly done a great deal of good. In the bad old days, before statins, someone like me, suffering from very strong genetic hyperlipidemia, would simply have died of a heart attack by age 50, and the doctors would have said, oh well, that's the way it is, nothing we could do. Now that's becoming less and less common, and it's one reason many people can reasonably expect to live into their 80s now.

I can remember in my childhood, lots of older relatives and friends of older relatives passing away in their 50s or becoming invalids from heart conditions. Yes it's true, we know a lot more about diet and exercise now (back not so long ago I understand they actually forbade exercise after a heart attack), but statins really do seem to be the golden key to prevent heart disease, or prevent a recurrence for people who've already had a cardiac event. Or at the very least, reduce risk significantly.

As for the pharma companies being some sort of organized criminals profiteering from gullible people who they supposedly coerce into using their products, I personally don't have any problem with a corporation making pots of money from something that's doing a lot of good in the world. Don't forget that the shareholders in these publicly traded companies are you, me and our pension funds and insurance companies. And the stakeholders are everybody at risk of a heart attack.

[Tolley]

The thing is, millions of people have been taking statins for decades now, and the drugs have certainly done a great deal of good. In the bad old days, before statins, someone like me, suffering from very strong genetic hyperlipidemia, would simply have died of a heart attack by age 50, and the doctors would have said, oh well, that's the way it is, nothing we could do. Now that's becoming less and less common, and it's one reason many people can reasonably expect to live into their 80s now.

I can remember in my childhood, lots of older relatives and friends of older relatives passing away in their 50s or becoming invalids from heart conditions. Yes it's true, we know a lot more about diet and exercise now (back not so long ago I understand they actually forbade exercise after a heart attack), but statins really do seem to be the golden key to prevent heart disease, or prevent a recurrence for people who've already had a cardiac event. Or at the very least, reduce risk significantly.

As for the pharma companies being some sort of organized criminals profiteering from gullible people who they supposedly coerce into using their products, I personally don't have any problem with a corporation making pots of money from something that's doing a lot of good in the world. Don't forget that the shareholders in these publicly traded companies are you, me and our pension funds and insurance companies. And the stakeholders are everybody at risk of a heart attack.

Even the prestigious medical publication the Lancet admits that Statins are of virtually no benefit to older men and women.

For others it has to be decided whether the side effects actually outweigh the benefits especially considering that there have been a few studies that have shown that diet and vitamin supplementation actually lowered LDLs more significantly than liptors.

[Jingthing]

Even the prestigious medical publication the Lancet admits that Statins are of virtually no benefit to older men and women.

I have never heard that extreme old age was a factor in statins not working, but if what you say is true, at least they MADE IT to extreme old age. That is kind of the point. To prevent premature deaths and extend the quality of life as long as possible.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Jingthing

[jhc]

Happy isn't the word I would use. It was a medical decision as I followed the advise of a trusted doctor. I have heard for years that many docs in the US are taking statins themselves, even if their chol numbers OK.

To the guy who suggested a raw foods/vegan/whatever diet, that is all well and good, but the real life reality is that only a very small minority of people will ever follow such a radical diet, and even then no guarantee you don't have genetic factors.

I don't think it is radical by just eating a meal of fruits. We are designed to eat ripe raw fruits/veggies/greens (some nuts and seeds) as our optimal foods.

Let's focus on a "perfect world" where it is just you and the nature, i.e. the Garden of Eden aka tropical place with plenty of fruits and veggies all year round which most parts of Thailand are ideal places. No tools, no fire making stuff et al. There are wild animals of any kinds roaming around like wild pigs, deers et al along with fishes in the river and the sea. Now if you are hungry, the first thing, what would you go ahead eat? I bet you would be more likely to go ahead eat ripe fruits off from the tree and make a meal out of it. Why would you be trying to catch, kill and eat wild pig (which would not taste good at all) when you could simply go to the tree and pick ripe fruits that taste wonderfully sweet? Also would you suck some cow's nipple in order to drink some milk? (cow's milk is for calf, nothing else)

Big cats go wild catching wild pig and eat them with gusto, but those cats won't eat any fruits (I tried giving fresh fruits to my cats and they all refused to eat even if they are hungry). So it is pretty logical that we are designed to eat fresh raw fruits and veggies. Deers are designed to eat grass. Cats are designed to catch and eat live animals.

As you walk around and climb trees (which is natural exercise by itself) to get the fruits and eat them until you are not hungry and do that for months, I am sure your health will be far much better (assume there is no negative stress as negative stress do affects health level). That is perfectly natural, nothing radical in this.

I used to be brainwashed about genetic factors. My mom got breast cancer and my dad got prostate cancer and I have seen it all. I thought it is genetic thing and I thought I would get prostate cancer when I get older so it is like I have to accept that fate. Turns out it is bogus after all. Had my parents only eat fresh fruits and veggies along with healthy lifestyle (sunlight, good sleep, exercise, clean air, clean water, avoid toxic chemicals, avoid stress etc) I am sure my parents would not have that cancer in the first place after all. So it is nothing to do with genetics, it is because my parents ate cooked foods, cooked meats, dairy products all their life and as a result got cancer and to make it worse, they went through chemo and drugs and same time still eating those un-natural foods and the cancers got back and both died from cancer anyway.

Everyone has different degree of sensitivity of how their body deal with toxic/un-natural stuff, some get cancer/disease much sooner, some much later. Had all of them eat their optimal diet namely fruits/veggies, they would be very healthy (which is normal) until die of old age (natural death).

About trusted doctor, I trusted my parents very much after all I am their #1, no doubt about it, but they told me that milk, cooked meats, cooked grains and all of that are very good for me and I should eat them. My parents love me and wants to best for me. So is my parents lying to me or they just did not know? Same thing with doctor, they just did not know, not realized what is really optimal for us.

That is why I keep telling people not to trust anyone but his/her brain. I just told my daughters (I did told them in past again and again) that they should not trust anyone including their dad but only trust their brain and their own thinking. That is best way to live.

I admit I was brainwashed for long time and I was very dumb but now I had to use my brain more, do lot of thinking and started to wake up and said to myself "Oh boy, why did I know that stuff before?" Better late than never.... I am always trying to be less dumb than before

As long we eat optimal food of our biology origin and all aspects of healthy living, then our body will take care of itself.

[jhc]

The thing is, millions of people have been taking statins for decades now, and the drugs have certainly done a great deal of good. In the bad old days, before statins, someone like me, suffering from very strong genetic hyperlipidemia, would simply have died of a heart attack by age 50, and the doctors would have said, oh well, that's the way it is, nothing we could do. Now that's becoming less and less common, and it's one reason many people can reasonably expect to live into their 80s now.

I can remember in my childhood, lots of older relatives and friends of older relatives passing away in their 50s or becoming invalids from heart conditions. Yes it's true, we know a lot more about diet and exercise now (back not so long ago I understand they actually forbade exercise after a heart attack), but statins really do seem to be the golden key to prevent heart disease, or prevent a recurrence for people who've already had a cardiac event. Or at the very least, reduce risk significantly.

As for the pharma companies being some sort of organized criminals profiteering from gullible people who they supposedly coerce into using their products, I personally don't have any problem with a corporation making pots of money from something that's doing a lot of good in the world. Don't forget that the shareholders in these publicly traded companies are you, me and our pension funds and insurance companies. And the stakeholders are everybody at risk of a heart attack.

The cause of heart condition is mostly due to unhealthy lifestyle such as eating cooked meats, cooked grains, cooked foods, dairy products et al as well other poor aspects of healthy living. Had one eat fresh fruits/veggies and doing healthy lifestyle then they won't have heart condition to begin with.

For me I far rather eat optimal foods namely fresh fruits/veggies as it is found in it's natural state than eat cooked foods (meats, dairy, grains et al) and take pills.

My motto is "The closer to the nature, the better"

[PeaceBlondie]

Do we have an emoticon for "balderdash"?

Mankind has been cooking meat and veggies for a million years. Some of the folks I have known with the most delicate, endangered health were meticulous vegans. Pass me the hamburger, thank you.

[Jingthing]

I don't think it is radical by just eating a meal of fruits.

He lost me after that (first sentence).

Scientific evidence is brain washing, OK.

This line of reasoning seems to be kind of the left wing polar opposite of the right wing "everything is God's plan and we can do nothing" world view. They are both anti-science. I like the middle road and I like the science nerds trying to rationally distill the truth. I recognize I am not a scientist, so if I want to learn about science, better listen to a scientist rather than a preacher or natural foods grocer.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Jingthing

[merck]

The thing is, millions of people have been taking statins for decades now, and the drugs have certainly done a great deal of good. In the bad old days, before statins, someone like me, suffering from very strong genetic hyperlipidemia, would simply have died of a heart attack by age 50, and the doctors would have said, oh well, that's the way it is, nothing we could do. Now that's becoming less and less common, and it's one reason many people can reasonably expect to live into their 80s now.

I can remember in my childhood, lots of older relatives and friends of older relatives passing away in their 50s or becoming invalids from heart conditions. Yes it's true, we know a lot more about diet and exercise now (back not so long ago I understand they actually forbade exercise after a heart attack), but statins really do seem to be the golden key to prevent heart disease, or prevent a recurrence for people who've already had a cardiac event. Or at the very least, reduce risk significantly.

As for the pharma companies being some sort of organized criminals profiteering from gullible people who they supposedly coerce into using their products, I personally don't have any problem with a corporation making pots of money from something that's doing a lot of good in the world. Don't forget that the shareholders in these publicly traded companies are you, me and our pension funds and insurance companies. And the stakeholders are everybody at risk of a heart attack.

That could well be due to improved heart surgery techniques that have been around since the 1980s eg stents etc.

[jhc]

Do we have an emoticon for "balderdash"?

Mankind has been cooking meat and veggies for a million years. Some of the folks I have known with the most delicate, endangered health were meticulous vegans. Pass me the hamburger, thank you.

I used to be in your shoes in the past thinking that vegan are idiots and the like. Oh boy I was wrong, I have been brainwashed. I have been de-brainwashing for past 4 years so I know how it feels. Reminds me of people who believed the world is flat and sacrifice humans to their Gods is a right thing to do.

Kinda of funny when humans are the smartest species on Planet Earth, but as a society, they got it so wrong most of time!

I hang around with the healthiest people I ever know/met and they are ones who eat low fat raw vegan that is mostly fruits and greens. Most of them were very sick while they were living the modern lifestyle (i.e. Standard America/Western Diet) and got lot better health-wise by going for low fat raw vegan diet. I never seen one example of one's health that got worse when eating low fat raw vegan (mostly whole fresh ripe organic fruits, veggies and greens) as long he/she maintain all aspects of healthy living.

Cooked vegan with grains etc are not that healthy. Read "The 80/10/10 Diet" book for common sense reading.

Most people (scientists) said that humans started in Africa which make sense to me.

I am pretty sure that humans started in tropical Africa where there is lot of fruits and greens year round. Why bother trying to catch and kill animals/fishes (and very hard to make fire if they do so it is most likely don't make fire for most of our whole ancestor's time) if they just can eat fresh ripe whole fruits off from tree (or from the ground if it falls off from the tree) and I bet they are far much healthier than our time by far. They are thriving big time for sure eating those wonderful fruits.

Of course the population grew and fruits got scarer so we have tribal fighting for fruit (food) territory as food (along with air and water) are only thing we cannot live without.

So the losing tribes got pushed out to areas where it does not have much fruit and plus pushed into colder climates. So they are forced to eat meat/grains in order to survive (if they just ate fruits in nice wonderful tropical place, then they are thriving) and eventually old habits die hard even we have technology/transportation in place that can bring fruits to anywhere in the world. Then there comes powerful money interest (i.e. The Rockefellers and the like) which created the modern medicine industry for the sake of the profits over anyone's real health.

Our closest animal relative is Bonobo (in terms of DNA) and if we observe Bonobo in their natural habitat (tropical places where there is lot of fruits/veggies/greens)

and we will find that Bonobo's diet is basically low fat raw vegan aka The 80/10/10 Diet which is mostly fruits.

If it still does not make sense to you, then I would suggest you to try eat low fat raw vegan for say 3 months and see how you feel. I bet you will feel like a new person and will never want to go back to old unhealthy habits (if you put health as top priority as I do). Your body will give you the answers.

[jhc]

I don't think it is radical by just eating a meal of fruits.

He lost me after that (first sentence).

Scientific evidence is brain washing, OK.

This line of reasoning seems to be kind of the left wing polar opposite of the right wing "everything is God's plan and we can do nothing" world view. They are both anti-science. I like the middle road and I like the science nerds trying to rationally distill the truth. I recognize I am not a scientist, so if I want to learn about science, better listen to a scientist rather than a preacher or natural foods grocer.

I used to think the same way as you do and I was sorely mistaken. Better late than never.

How about listening to your own brain and your own natural instincts? How about being honest with oneself?

I don't need anyone to think for me. I got my own brain to do the thinking for me. It is like it is not good for society if society does not do the thinking for themselves.

Here is a simple test for you:

Let say it is just you/your bare hands and nature (which is 99% of species do on Earth without human interference) in a very nice tropical setting (we normally set our thermostat to around 80 or so degrees F so that is our ideal temperature year round) where there is lot of fruits trees growing bearing various of fruits year round. Of course there are fishes in river/lake/sea and animals like deer, wild pigs, rabbits, fowls, etc... out in the wild. No tools, no technology, (which is most our ancestor's time which talks about millions or so years) just rocks and logs. What would you do if you are hungry honestly? If I am in your shoes, I would just live off from fruits year round because they taste so wonderfully sweet and I would feel great eating that way and it is the most efficient way for us to eat to thrive. The law of efficiency do exist in nature everywhere.

Some good quotes about thinking for oneself:

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell bemoaned that: "Many people would

die sooner than think; in fact, they do".

Keep practicing critical thinking. The British politician Barbara Castle

once said: "Think, think, think. It will hurt like hel_l at first, but you'll

get used to it".

Don't worry if thinking critically initially confuses you. Life isn't simple

and the world is not black and white.

As the Greek philosopher Socrates put it: "Confusion is the beginning of

wisdom".

[Jingthing]

This is ridiculous. A few hundred years ago men in the "state of nature" were lucky to live till age 30.

Your, massively arrogant, conclusion is that everyone who doesn't reach the exact same conclusions as you is BRAINWASHED. BTW, of course all sensible people recognize how important a healthy diet and exercise are to maintaining health. The one dedicated vegan I know just had a massive stroke (under age 60). I don't take that as evidence (one case) either way as to the merits of the vegan diet. Only widespread scientific studies, not single case studies (I feel better, whoppee!!!) tell us much of anything.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Jingthing

[jhc]

This is ridiculous. A few hundred years ago men in the "state of nature" were lucky to live till age 30.

Your, massively arrogant, conclusion is that everyone who doesn't reach the exact same conclusions as you is BRAINWASHED. BTW, of course all sensible people recognize how important a healthy diet and exercise are to maintaining health. The one dedicated vegan I know just had a massive stroke (under age 60). I don't take that as evidence (one case) either way as to the merits of the vegan diet. Only widespread scientific studies, not single case studies (I feel better, whoppee!!!) tell us much of anything.

Did you read "The China Study" book by T. Colin Campbell? It is full of data and scientific evidence showing why plant based diet is the ideal diet for humans.

Let say if you ate fresh ripe organic fruits, veggies and greens (some nuts and seeds) in it's natural state since you were born along with all aspects of healthy living in nice tropical place (nice weather all year round), i bet you would live very healthfully for a long time until old age and died "normally" and true for most people who would live that way.

I know a guy who is 55 years old now (Doug Graham, the author of "The 80/10/10 Diet") who has been eating low fat raw vegan diet mostly fruits, veggies and greens for past 30 years and he has not had a single sick day since then and his fitness level is nothing short of amazing. Talking about role model of being healthy, he is the one.

About a person you know who got massive stroke, it is possible that he had bad eating habits/unhealthy lifestyle for a long time before he/she became vegan. Furthermore cooked vegan is not healthy (compare with eating fresh organic whole ripe fruits that is).

[Jingthing]

Oy vey. So if your role model has a heart attack tomorrow, you change your mind? You cannot make these conclusions based on SINGLE LIVES. That is what science is for, at least an attempt at examining the bigger picture in an objective way. If the vegan thing is working for you, good for you, but I personally think you would be a fool to still not check your blood levels for risk factors no matter how good you feel. For example, most people with hypertension have no symptoms, yet it will kill them if left untreated.

[jhc]

Oy vey. So if your role model has a heart attack tomorrow, you change your mind? You cannot make these conclusions based on SINGLE LIVES. That is what science is for, at least an attempt at examining the bigger picture in an objective way. If the vegan thing is working for you, good for you, but I personally think you would be a fool to still not check your blood levels for risk factors no matter how good you feel. For example, most people with hypertension have no symptoms, yet it will kill them if left untreated.

No, I won't change my mind if he got heart attack tomorrow. I based my diet on "myself and the nature" You are right that single lives is not the answer. If one wants science, I highly recommend getting "The China Study" book, it opened my eyes. In my opinion, the ideal solution for people with hypertension is low fat raw vegan diet along with exercise, sunlight, good sleep, positive attitude, clean air, clean water, avoid toxic stuff et al. To me, it does not make sense to take drugs for hypertension if he/she does not change their unhealthy living practices that caused hypertension in the first place. We need to focus more on the source, the root cause of our well being.

I agree that one should check their blood level and hope it will be a wake up call for them to improve their health the natural way.

I just wanted to have good constructive debate to help people do better things for their lives. Also I always learned something new from those kind of debates. As long we try to be honest with ourselves as much as we can. We know some people have hidden basis (i.e. motive of money etc) which will make them say one thing, not the other.

I am not perfect by far, but I am trying to learn and think and making sense the best I can and will continue to do so.

[Jingthing]

Not everyone is capable, for a variety of reasons, to control their health risks with diet and exercise alone. I agree it is worthwhile for people to try, but if not, that is what medications are for. Human nature is not perfect. The percentage of people willing and able to follow a radical diet (assuming it would always work which of course it would not) is just not very large. Again, that is what medications are for. The goal is the same, to extend life and to extend years of quality life. You may be morally superior in your own way, but your approach really isn't very real world for the vast majority of people.

[jhc]

Like if I am in prison for long time and the foods they only offer are meats and dairy, then I may have no choice but to take statin drug (if they do offer) in order to try to keep my cholesterol level at bay (with it's side effects) just to hopefully buy me some more years of life. But the quality of life (poor health) will be the same, but just buy some more time to live.

I think killing chicken, pluck it's feathers out, remove it's guts inside, cut into pieces and cooking until it is done, add some seasoning is quite radical to me. Eating fresh organic ripe raw fruits right off from the tree is the most normal/natural way to me.

It is true it is bit more challenge to eat low fat raw vegan diet in places like Sweden, England, northern USA, Canada etc which would require imported fruits most of time during the year. But in place like Thailand, we could buy fruits so cheap and eat them plenty year round.

It would be a great way to earn living by helping/hand holding those people into healthier modes of living to resolve their health problems and have a much better quality and longer life as a result. A huge opportunity!

[Jingthing]

Aren't most fruits/vegs you buy in Thailand full of chemicals?

[jhc]

Aren't most fruits/vegs you buy in Thailand full of chemicals?

Very good questions. That is the main reason why I want to buy a tract of land and grow my own sources of organic fruits and veggies. Don't trust the "middleman" who are taking short cuts (i.e. spraying with chemicals) for his/her profits.

My friend who been in Thailand says there are some organic fruits and veggies selling there so I will look for them. While I am there, I will try to make a movement into organic fruits/veggies such as setting up the organic certification process, the education about growing organic fruits/veggies and the like.

Despite farmers using chemicals for fruits and veggies, some fruits have very little amount of toxic stuff which is "ok" to eat, but some may have way too high toxic stuff that it is not worth to eat. Check out http://www.foodnews.org/ we probably won't eat top 10, 15 or 20 most contaminated with 'cides.

It is no surprise that those farmers would feed toxic food to their domestic animals such as chicken, pigs, cattle, goat etc and those toxic stuff still ends up in the meats of those animals, all for the sake of bottom line profits. If one has to eat meat, then he/she would want to eat organic meats or hunt for wild animals, not the animals that were fed with food that is full of 'cides. (Not to mention excessive use of antibiotics, growth hormones and the like).

In short, you are right we should seek organically grown foods period as we don't need those 'cides et al in our bodies.

[Tolley]

As important as food is to the body it should be remembered that emotional and physchological factors also influence our health along with environmental factors.

So i think it is too simplistic to put everything down to diet.

Prescription meds have their place in the scheme of things and it should also be remembered the single most important discovery over the last hundred years is what is primarily responsible for increase life spans and that is the discovery of penicillin.

On the other hand many times prescription drugs are overused and over prescribed.

So really it is a matter of getting the balance right. This is not easy as there is so much conflicting evidence out there when it comes to what works and what doesn't.

At the end of the day each individual has to make a difficult decision when it comes to what they do in regards to their heath based on the best available information that they can get at the time.

[billp]

Even the prestigious medical publication the Lancet admits that Statins are of virtually no benefit to older men and women.

I sure would like to see a reference on that, because I've never heard of such a preposterous thing, and I rather doubt a respected, peer-reviewed medical journal would have published any such study without it being heavily reported in the general media.

As for all the vegan/organic blather above, very little has ever been substantiated by scientific data. Just anecdotal, biased opinions like you read above. What has been scientifically proven is a strong genetic element in heart disease, whatever your diet.

[billp]

There's a pretty good article in today's International Herald Tribune, which puts the Jupiter study into perspective. Read it here.

[Tolley]

bilip for your edification read below

January 25, 2007 Shelley Wood

London, UK - Authors of a Comment in the January 20, 2007 issue of the Lancet are calling for a revision of the 2001 US National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines, saying that statin therapy for primary prevention in women or in people over age 65 is not supported by the bulk of the evidence [1]. But others counter that while the magnitude of the benefit may not be as large in primary-prevention patients as in secondary prevention, there is clear benefit, particularly in higher-risk groups.

"In support of statin therapy for the primary prevention of this disease in women and people aged over 65 years, the guidelines cite seven and nine randomized trials, respectively. Yet not one of the studies provides such evidence," Dr John Abramson (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) and Dr Jim Wright (University of British Columbia, Vancouver) write in the Lancet.

The authors of the Comment drew their conclusions after looking at eight randomized clinical trials that compared statins with placebo and included primary-prevention populations at increased risk of developing CAD. Overall benefit was estimated on the basis of total mortality and total serious adverse events. They report that total mortality was not reduced by statins. In the two trials that reported total serious adverse events, these events were not reduced or increased by statins.

When only cardiovascular events were considered, Abramson and Wright report that statins reduced this outcome to a statistically significant degree; however, the absolute risk reduction of 1.5% was small. Moreover, this would mean that 67 people would have to be treated for five years to prevent one event. Furthermore, they argue, this benefit might be confined to high-risk men between the ages of 30 and 69. Abramson and Wright contend that statins did not reduce coronary heart disease events in the almost 11 000 women in pooled trials, nor in men and women older than 69 (n=3239).

Relative risk by event and group

[Tolley]

BTW

The same study above found that statins were almost useless for younger healthier males as well.

But is it all worth it? According to an article being published in the medical journal The Lancet this week, the answer is probably no.

A leading researcher at Harvard Medical School has found that women don't benefit from taking statins at all, nor do men over 69 who haven't already had a heart attack.

There is a very faint benefit if you are a younger man who also hasn't had a heart attack - out of 50 men who take the drug for five years, one will benefit.

Nor is this the first study to suggest that fighting cholesterol with statins is bunk. Indeed, there are hundreds of doctors and researchers who agree that the cholesterol hypothesis itself is nonsense.

What their work shows, and what your doctor should be saying, is the following:

• A high diet, saturated or otherwise, does not affect blood cholesterol levels.

• High cholesterol levels don't cause heart disease.

• Statins do not protect against heart disease by lowering cholesterol - when they do work, they do so in another way.

• The protection provided by statins is so small as to be not worth bothering about for most people (and all women). The reality is that the benefits have been hyped beyond belief.

• Statins have many more unpleasant side effects than has been admitted, while experts in this area should be treated with healthy scepticism because they are almost universally paid large sums by statin manufacturers to sing loudly from their hymn sheet.

[Sheryl]

There is indeed controversy ongoing within the medical community about the risks/benefits of some forms of statin use, i.e. use in people without hyperlipedemia as a form of "primary prevention"against various things (heart disease, stroke etc). And likely to be more studies before any consensus is reached.

However, it is well established that statins are beneficial for people who have certain disorders of lipid metabolism. Use in that context is not what the latest study and its controversy concern.

So it is not a question of statins being totally useless, only whether or not their usefulness extends beyond treatment of that smaller subset of people with documented disease.

Should also keep in mind that there are different types of lipid disorders, some respond to dietary and ther lifestyle changes and some usually do not; genetics plays a primary or even sole role in some and not iso much in others. Not all doctors are fully up to date on this, and people with abnormal triglyceride and/or HDL/LDL levels would be well advised to consult a specialist in the field before starting medication. I have run across many cases of people either being prescribed medication when they did not need it or the wrong type for their particular condition.