This presentation of medical science information highlights the biggest flaw in medical science. It narrows the universe of understanding health.
First it requires one to accept the premise of cholesterol risk. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't a significant risk factor? Maybe it's a trailing indicator of another condition inside the body system, not a leading indicator?
And importantly, the debate presented is questions over safety vs. efficacy in the product. Without presentation of other products, manufactured, natural, lifestyle choices, etc that have their own effectiveness and safety profiles.
Medical science devolves into this paradigm. So fixated on one product without regard for the entire universe of other possibilities. If, say, a regimen of chia seeds, high antioxidant berries and exercise is equally effective/higher/slightly less effective AND has near zero risk associated with it why would anyone choose a product with negligible comparative efficacy accompanied by significantly higher risk?
Medical science as we know it today is burdened by blinders. Intentionally placed on it. Under the false and dangerous belief that only research into brand new products that can be patented and sold are viable for health. Not coincidentally at great profit to the researchers and their investors.
I was recently offered them by GP as annual blood test showed apparently too high 'bad' cholestrol. I'd read up a bit earlier. The levels thought OK at one time had been lowered, like "normal" BP range, meeaning more people on meds for life! A few studies showed if you took them for 20 years, you may live 4 months longer. Also, I read, the brain needs fat and it is reduced with statins. Recall the AI said they can cause cognitive impairment (dementia?). Together with annual flu shots, (aluminium poisoning), could they be the real reasons for big increases in dementia patients?
Great topic. Metformin is another one I wonder about. When I had done some light reading about statins and by also looking at blood samples under microscope, a concern of mine would be whether red blood cells are softened by long term use of statins, making ghost RBCs a greater possibility of occuring. I do not take any medication, supplements, or even vitamins, although I do see how medicine can be helpful. Where I pause in particular is when doctors prescribe drugs indefinitely or outright say you need to take for the rest of your life. The human body is constantly evolving. That would be a very hard pill for me to swallow (pun intended!) I'd probably do everything else I could in terms of healthy eating drinking and exercise to avoid being reliant on a drug or other sort of treatment indefinitely. I would want to know when can I tell that I can be done with taking this? If no good answer or never, I'd definitely seek a second opinion or come up with my own.
This presentation of medical science information highlights the biggest flaw in medical science. It narrows the universe of understanding health.
First it requires one to accept the premise of cholesterol risk. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't a significant risk factor? Maybe it's a trailing indicator of another condition inside the body system, not a leading indicator?
And importantly, the debate presented is questions over safety vs. efficacy in the product. Without presentation of other products, manufactured, natural, lifestyle choices, etc that have their own effectiveness and safety profiles.
Medical science devolves into this paradigm. So fixated on one product without regard for the entire universe of other possibilities. If, say, a regimen of chia seeds, high antioxidant berries and exercise is equally effective/higher/slightly less effective AND has near zero risk associated with it why would anyone choose a product with negligible comparative efficacy accompanied by significantly higher risk?
Medical science as we know it today is burdened by blinders. Intentionally placed on it. Under the false and dangerous belief that only research into brand new products that can be patented and sold are viable for health. Not coincidentally at great profit to the researchers and their investors.
Supplements to lower ldl-
Artichoke Extract, beta sitosterol, Milk Thistle, poliocasanol,fish oil,Nattokinase, berberine, grapeseed extract .
Plus exercise.
Statins also lower Coq10.
I was recently offered them by GP as annual blood test showed apparently too high 'bad' cholestrol. I'd read up a bit earlier. The levels thought OK at one time had been lowered, like "normal" BP range, meeaning more people on meds for life! A few studies showed if you took them for 20 years, you may live 4 months longer. Also, I read, the brain needs fat and it is reduced with statins. Recall the AI said they can cause cognitive impairment (dementia?). Together with annual flu shots, (aluminium poisoning), could they be the real reasons for big increases in dementia patients?
Great topic. Metformin is another one I wonder about. When I had done some light reading about statins and by also looking at blood samples under microscope, a concern of mine would be whether red blood cells are softened by long term use of statins, making ghost RBCs a greater possibility of occuring. I do not take any medication, supplements, or even vitamins, although I do see how medicine can be helpful. Where I pause in particular is when doctors prescribe drugs indefinitely or outright say you need to take for the rest of your life. The human body is constantly evolving. That would be a very hard pill for me to swallow (pun intended!) I'd probably do everything else I could in terms of healthy eating drinking and exercise to avoid being reliant on a drug or other sort of treatment indefinitely. I would want to know when can I tell that I can be done with taking this? If no good answer or never, I'd definitely seek a second opinion or come up with my own.