Mine is about 2.7 normally. I must try and find something to bump it up.
BTW its the ratio of LDL and HDL that is important. The idea of high cholesterol is old hat. Statins influence that ratio.
(Just in case you're lying about the killfile.)
No you aren't. You're a vendor of condoms to spotty teenagers.
And yet you've still not worked out how pointless willy-waving on Usenet is?
Grow up.
I didn't have the slightest difficulty in judging who was more likely to be correct.
In the first place, they were not both "world expert level" medical scientists on this subject. One was a GP who appeared to have no statistical data whatever; the other was an Oxford professor participating in world-wide statistical studies on this question. According to him there is overwhelming evidence that statins reduce the probability of heart attack and stroke.
He also claimed that there was no evidence of widespread side-effects.
I didn't think it was a "pseudo-medical programme". It seemed to me to be a straight-forward report on an important topic.
I've got a mate whose level is 11.something. After months, if not years, of trying to get his level down the medics, (and he) discovered that it runs in the family, so the reduction programme was backed off, and he "lives with it" .... as he always had done, before the GP's standard testing discovered the astronomically high level.
J.
True. Maybe if the medics prescribed a CoQ10 supplement at the same time patients would have more faith?
Pulse website has something to say:
You will probably have to sign up to see the full piece.
Written by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, that well known sensationalist who graduated from the University of Aberdeen in 1981, has been a general practitioner for over 25 years, and has worked with the European Society of Cardiology.
There is plenty of evidence that at the very least anyone being started on statins should first be checked for possible hypothyroidism.
"Rhabdomyolysis is a syndrome involving the breakdown of skeletal muscle that causes myoglobin and other intracellular proteins to leak into the circulatory system, resulting in organ injury including acute kidney injury. We report a case of statin-induced rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury that developed in a 63-year-old woman with previously undiagnosed hypothyroidism. Untreated hypothyroidism may have caused her hypercholesterolemia requiring statin treatment, and it is postulated that statin-induced muscle injury was aggravated by hypothyroidism resulting in her full-blown rhabdomyolysis. Although this patient was successfully treated with continuous venovenous hemofiltration and L-thyroxin replacement, rhabdomyolysis with acute kidney injury is a potentially life-threatening disorder. Physicians must pay special attention to the possible presence of subclinical hypothyroidism when administering statins in patients with hypercholesterolemia."
Unfortunately, that was the idea that I got, both being interviewed in the same oak panelled room, with dreaming spires outside the window, both silver haired gents in three-piece suits (IIRC), both with academic-type voices, and both interviewed with the same mix of deference and scepticism by Michael Moseley.
Yerrrsss -- I leaned towards his view alright. (So why have the other chap in at all, let alone in such a "balanced" way?)
Did he? He's wrong on that one then isn't he!
Lazy writing on my part: "quasi-" not "pseudo-". You couldn't put a genuinely scientific programme out on prime time TV.
This is certainly what I value Michael Moseley for -- that, and his wonderful liveliness, and lucidity. And he did say, at the end of all the programmes in that series (again, if I recall correctly): "Well there you have it! Make your own mind up!".
Which was kind of counter to the thrust of the publicity, which always asked a straight question, e.g. "Should I take statins?" (which implies that the programme will provide the answer).
There was a real rubbish "quasi-scientific" programme last week: "Is it Fat or is it Sugar that is the real enemy?" Tripe -- jolly expensive tripe too.
Looks like I watch loads of TV doesn't it? Well I don't - not hardly any. I'm usually doing something *useful* instead.
John
Your sample is self-selecting.
You do seem intent upon banging your drum whether it is relevant to a particular post or not.
Colin Bignell
Sorry if I deafened you Colin, but don't you think your wanting to post in this thread makes it relevant ?
Jim Hawkins
Your polemic is not relevant to my reply to another poster.
It should be fairly obvious from that post that my cholesterol is naturally low, so any discussion about taking statins is irrelevant to me. However, if I did take them it wouldn't worry me that I was helping the pharmaceutical companies to make the money that they need to reinvest in developing new drugs.
Colin Bignell
"Millions more people should be put on cholesterol-lowering statin drugs to protect them against heart attacks and strokes, according to draft guidelines for the NHS in England.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) says the scope for offering this treatment should be widened to save more lives. "
Bearing in mind that NICE is usually pretty conservative in its recommendations, much to the annoyance of some pressure groups wanting approval for some new drug or other, I'm sure they've studied all the relevant research and heard all the arguments on both sides, and have finally come down in favour of statins being beneficial to public health.
It's detailed here in Daily Mail, so it must be true
OK Jim,,
I hope you dont mind if i suggest another article to put on your reading list..
Not directly related to statins,, but it does cover some simmilar ground re calcium..
I live with a ninty year old,, i take an interest, in Health and stuff just now,,
.............
Jesus, that seething pit of cranks is your idea of evidence, is it?
Thanks for that reference, 'NutherPers', It has much useful data on magnesium and how its absorbed by the body.
Jim Hawkins
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.