Unbelievable, statin drugs targeted on kids

Please read your own source. This LDL lowering affect was seen in HAMSTERS, not humans. Anyone who has even the tiniest bit of knowledge regarding drug research knows that translating animal-testing results into human results without clinical trials is dishonest and irresponsible.

I, on the other hand, provided you with a human trial, which you have summarily ignored.

Interesting.

Originally posted by zzombie
Geneticists are like infants playing with loaded guns, but sadly the bullets they shoot are aimed at everyone else.

I'm assuming your use of ad hominems means you're out of arguments and instead prefer the logical fallacy of character assassination.

Sadly I could say the same for you, lying and full of misinformation.

Please show me a claim I have made without evidence. I posted a study that shows, unequivocally, that citrus flavonoids do not lower serum cholesterol in humans, despite what animal testing indicates. You have not supported any claim you've made.

Could it be your source of income depends on the propagation of vast amounts of medical misinformation we call modern medicine. Or should we call it disease profiteering.

Nope, I work for a public hospital. As I've mentioned on several threads, I am a salaried physician, meaning I receive the same monthly pay if I write one prescription or a thousand, refer one patient to a specialist or a thousand patients, and so on. I won't hold you responsible for knowing where I work or the nature of my pay, but I will hold you responsible for the grossly offensive character attack. Reported.

The source of Statin's damage is already posted in my original post. This guy is a real doctor. If you listen to some of his videos he used to support drugs much more than he does now. There are plenty of other references available with a few mouse clicks.

The problem with statins is of course potential liver damage, it also blocks the production of CoQ10, which is quite important, leading to other damage.

Statins are not the answer to heart disease, and thus should not be peddled onto our kids.

As in my original post Dr. Mercola already said that there is a small percentage of people who would benefit from a statin, because of a genetic disorder, which makes elevated cholesterol hard to control.

In my opinion, I'm not exactly sure if they are every necessary at all. I tend to think that there is usually a natural solution.... But I suppose there could be special cases.

You must remember that cholesterol is used by your body for important things. It is produced by our own liver. It's there for a reason.

But, there are natural ways to lower cholesterol, should you feel it necessary to do so. But, instead of asking how can I lower my cholesterol, maybe a better question is why is my cholesterol high? It's high for a reason. It is my understanding that cholesterol plays a role in the healing process of arteries for one thing. Perhaps there is a lot of damage happening inside the arteries, that needs to be addressed?

The drug companies themselves will tell you the side effects, look it up. Drugs.com is a place I look sometimes. Statins are not a cute little drug, they can cause quite a bit of damage, and you can end up with heart failure, among other unlovely things. Isn't that peculiar for a drug that is supposed to protect you from heart attack?

Pfizer and these other drug companies are not looking out for your best interest, that's for sure. If you think otherwise, then you should take a step back, and actually look at the facts. Study the side effects, and the damage. Do some research.

People are waking up to the truth, but we need more people to wake up before it's too late.

Do you want something scary, look at the adverse effects of Coumadin, a blood thinner. That's just another in a long line of destructive drugs.

This is not a joke, or some scam I cooked up. This is one of the biggest true conspiracies on ATS, and it's right in front of our face, but some people can't see it. They tell us to our face on commercials what these drugs can do, yet some people still take the drugs. We are blinded by authority figures who "couldn't possibly" be doing something to hurt us. We are blinded by the fact that insurance won't cover your vitamin and mineral bill; "The medication is paid for, insurance doesn't cover Vitamin C, so I'm not going to get that." we say. We are blinded by the lie that these "miracle drugs" are the answer. Amazing how this lie exists in a country that has a "war on drugs." "Just say no," we are told, then we get routed to the doctor for a lifetime prescription of pain killers and anti-depressants.

Troy

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

I'm assuming your use of ad hominems means you're out of arguments and instead prefer the logical fallacy of character assassination.

I think you were the first one that took the ad homonym attack calling me a liar.

I think your argument would hold more water if hamsters were not mammalian. There are more similarities than differences.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,” -Upton Sinclair

Orange oil is 90% d-limonene, which is probably more responsible for the effect than the flavinoids in the peel. en.wikipedia.org...

Here is an in vivo study with d-limonene from orange peel oil.

Medical dissolution of gallstones. Clinical experience of d-limonene as a simple, safe, and effective solvent.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Another study describes this in vitro natural solvent found in orange peel to be an effective solvent for cholesterol based gall stones.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Originally posted by zzombie

I think your argument would hold more water if hamsters were not mammalian. There are more similarities than differences.

Again, you show you have little to no experience in biological research. Just because a model animal is mammalian doesn't mean you can translate the results to humans.

Here's a good example for you: dogs, often used as a model animal in cardiovascular studies, will die when given moderate amounts of theobromine. Humans, on the other hand, have an enzyme that can break this compound down with no problems, which is why we are able to each chocolate.

So, since theobromine kills dogs, you're saying we CLEARLY can't eat chocolate, despite similar amounts that kill dogs having no ill effects in humans?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,” -Upton Sinclair

Reported for another ad hominem, continuing to claim I am "profiting" from basic science.

Orange oil is 90% d-limonene, which is probably more responsible for the effect than the flavinoids in the peel. en.wikipedia.org...

Here is an in vivo study with d-limonene from orange peel oil.

Medical dissolution of gallstones. Clinical experience of d-limonene as a simple, safe, and effective solvent.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Another study describes this in vitro natural solvent found in orange peel to be an effective solvent for cholesterol based gall stones.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Again, you need to have a basic understanding of human biology before making sweeping claims. Cholesterol in gallstones is not the same as in athersclerosis. Gallstones contain crystallized cholesterol esters. Atherosclerotic plaques are based on soluble cholesterol molecules bound to apoproteins. These two types of cholesterol compounds have wildly different characteristics and are present in completely different biological environments. Suggesting that a compound works against ALL pathogenic cholesterol issues because it's been shown to work in ONE such situation is irresponsible, ignorant, and dangerous.

Science is built on evidence and reproducibility, not illogical connections and weak analogies.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

I, on the other hand, provided you with a human trial, which you have summarily ignored.

Interesting.

A human trial funded by a drug company.... how can it not be biased. How many times have drug companies been sued in the last decade for rushing unsafe products onto the market. The FDA will approve anything including organic mercury in numerous products.

The cure for 2 types of cancer is already used as a pharmaceutical preparation used to treat drug resistant malaria, but it will never be approved by the FDA for use in cancer treatment. That information came out 10 years ago, and is now buried.

why ? Cures don't make money. Pharmaceutical band-aids make money. The entire pharmaceutical industry is corrupt from top to bottom.

Long time lurker here on ATS this is my first post. I just made an account just to say I agree with everything the doctor VneZonyDostupa is saying. I am a student in pharmacy college but I am very skeptical and open minded. Statins do have side effects like every other drug, but without them a whole lot of people would not be alive right now. Both my parents take statins and the longer lives people have been experiencing can be directly related to statins and other drugs. The muscle weakness side effect is not very common and can me managed with a lower dose of statin.

Originally posted by zzombie

A human trial funded by a drug company.... how can it not be biased. How many times have drug companies been sued in the last decade for rushing unsafe products onto the market. The FDA will approve anything including organic mercury in numerous products.

Perhaps you should do a little research before making claims. This seems to be a constant issue for you. Unilever isn't a pharmaceutical company and doesn't produce any drugs. They were researching plant sterols and flavonoids as possible natural ingredients in butters/spreads so that they would produce a cholesterol-fighting food. They then published their work, showing that this avenue held no promise.

Gosh, how insidious and sinister! How DARE a non-pharmaceutical company perform research before producing a product! And how DARE they share that research, especially since they would have GAINED profit if the data showed the opposite of what the published!

The cure for 2 types of cancer is already used as a pharmaceutical preparation used to treat drug resistant malaria, but it will never be approved by the FDA for use in cancer treatment. That information came out 10 years ago, and is now buried.

Source, please.

why ? Cures don't make money. Pharmaceutical band-aids make money. The entire pharmaceutical industry is corrupt from top to bottom.

You don't think Pfizer would LOVE to market every other drug they produce with the tagline "From Pfizer - the company that cured diabetes"? Seriously? That's a marketing GOLD MINE. An elementary understanding of economics would tell you that the loss of profit from diabetes drugs would be more than off-set by the new-found brand loyalty and popularity, as people would preferentially buy PFizer-brand drugs. Why do you think so many companies switched to "organic" farming? It's more expensive, more time-consuming, and cuts into their profits, but if a company can wrap themselves in the "green" imagery, everything they make will sell like hotcakes.

It's not unbelievable at all.

It's Big Pharma taking the lead from McDonalds - get the brand names in the minds of the young and you'll hook them for life.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Again, you need to have a basic understanding of human biology before making sweeping claims. Cholesterol in gallstones is not the same as in athersclerosis.

Cholesterol is made by the liver, It can be lowered by interfering with its production (statins), or by sweeping it out with a suitable biological solvent.
such as limonene, or lethicin.

It can also be reduced by enhancing the rate of conversion of cholesterol to cholic acid (Bile) with ascorbate (vitamin C)


What is more important is exposing the fallacy that cholesterol causes heart disease.

The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy That Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease
www.amazon.com...

Arterial plaque is only 4% cholesterol. It is mainly composed of calcium sterate. Heart disease is a vitamin D and Vitamin K deficiency.

Cholesterol plugs your liver, not your blood veins.

Sorry dude but your behind times in your medical research.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by zzombie]

The topic of this thread is “Unbelievable, statin drugs targeted on kids”, not each other. Please keep to the topic:
Courtesy Is Mandatory

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Perhaps you should do a little research before making claims. This seems to be a constant issue for you. Unilever isn't a pharmaceutical company and doesn't produce any drugs. They were researching plant sterols and flavonoids as possible natural ingredients in butters/spreads so that they would produce a cholesterol-fighting food. They then published their work, showing that this avenue held no promise.

completely FALSE

Maybe you should take your own advise and do a little research.

The first anticholesterol statin was discovered by mold growing on oranges.
This was done by a Japanese scientitst Dr. Endo at a company called Sankyo.

tracerkinetics.engr.iupui.edu...

Merck was the first company to get FDA approval of statins as a commercial anti-cholesterol drug.

In 1978, Alfred Alberts and colleagues at Merck Research Laboratories discovered a new natural product in a fermentation broth af Aspergillus terreus, their product showed good HMGR inhibition and they named the product mevinolin, which later became known as lovastatin.

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 18-8-2010 by zzombie]

Can you show me where Unilever was mentioned in any of your post? I specifically posted a study by Unilever, which you claimed was biased because Unilever is a "pharmaceutical company" (which it isn't). I then explained WHY Unilever was looking into natural cholesterol-fighting compounds, which you responded to with a blurb about Merck for some reason.

Originally posted by zzombie
Cholesterol is made by the liver, It can be lowered by interfering with its production (statins), or by sweeping it out with a suitable biological solvent.
such as limonene, or lethicin.

Actually, only about a quarter of your body's cholesterol is made in the liver. It's a very common precursor molecule, so many cells make it (liver, glands, etc.).

Arterial plaque is only 4% cholesterol.

The percent-composition has nothing to do with it. the cholesterol in athersclerotic plaques is crystalline. It interrupts the normal intimal structure of the endothelium, which exposes adhereance molecules for leukocytes. These leukocytes adhere and then begin spitting out cytokines, which causes an inflammation cascade and fibrous overlay. This is athersclerosis. There is a plethora of evidence showing that one of the earliest (and most easily reversible steps) is the deposition of fat and cholesterol esters on the aterial wall.

Athersclerotic aorta contains 20x more cholesterol than normal aorta

Overview of athersclerosis etiology anf pathology

It is mainly composed of calcium sterate. Heart disease is a vitamin D and Vitamin K deficiency.

Again, basic biology. A vitamin K deficiency would cause anemia and bleeding. This is easily shown by looking at patients who are taking warfarin, a blood-thinnger and vitamin K antagonist. It creates an artificial vitamin K deficiency to thin the blood. Additionally, vitamin D deficiencies are not common in the western world, given how nearly every food (breads, milk, yogurt, cheese, even some meats) are fortified with it. If vitamin D were an issue, we would see more wieght LOSS (not GAIN)l issues and ricketts.

Athersclerosis is not a hemodynamic disorder. It is an injury-inflammation disorder of the endothelium and intima (layer of cells closest to the bloodstream).

Cholesterol plugs your liver, not your blood veins.

Source please.

Sorry dude but your behind times in your medical research.

Another ad hominem, especially after you made so many basic science errors above (amount of cholesterol produced by liver, nature of vitamin deficiencies).

Tsk tsk, the motto here is "deny ignorance" not "wear blinders".

How did I miss this? I was just on ATS Live talking about the OP.

reply to post by zzombie


About 1/4 of cholesterol is synthesized in the liver, the rest is manufactured in all types of cells throughout the body. So, cells have the ability to either make their own cholesterol or retrieve it from the bood in a nice little package called LDL, depending on the needs of the cell. Statins work by inhibiting the enzyme (HMG-CoA reductase) responsible for cholesterol synthesis within cells. The result is increased LDL receptor activity to increase the importation of cholesterol from the blood. In the end, total cholesterol is lowered.

What's really interesting is this same effect can be had--HMG-CoA reductase inhibition--without the side effects of statin drugs. The negative stimulus of insulin/positive stimulus of glucagon will indeed lower LDL cholesterol through the same method described above, which would explain some of the positive blood lipid levels that are observed with low-carb dieters.

Of course, as VZD has already pointed out, dietary changes are not decisions that a child will be in control of.

....which leads to a more controversial point...

If statins have no known benefit for women; and if the data really only shows a real statistically significant benefit for men who've had a myocardial infarction....why are we giving them to children?

Statins work well for men trying to prevent a second heart attack. Other than that....not so much.

Then...there's the question, does lowering cholesterol really help? Much of the research lately has shown that statins don't neccessarily work exclusively by lowering cholesterol, but by decreasing inflammation.

The biggest problem I have is not that kids are being medicated, it's that kids and adults are being told that low cholesterol levels decrease atheroslerosis incidence and mortality, and yet the data just doesn't support that notion. I mean, total cholesterol has never been correlated strongly with heart disease.

-Dev

Edit to add: looks like I was beat to the punch. :p

[edit on 18-8-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


VneZonyDostupa, you really are very smart, and i think that you are very good for ATS, (YOU REALLY DO MAKE THINGS INTERESTING.>LOL

Originally posted by zzombie


What is more important is exposing the fallacy that cholesterol causes heart disease.

High cholesterol probably doesn't. And saturated fat probably doesn't. And dietary cholesterol absolutely doesn't. But to say that cholesterol or lipoproteins, in general, aren't strongly associated with heart disease, or at least indirectly involved, is a ridiculous statement.

Originally posted by alpha68
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

VneZonyDostupa, you really are very smart, and i think that you are very good for ATS, (YOU REALLY DO MAKE THINGS INTERESTING.>LOL

Originally posted by alpha68
VneZonyDostupa, you really are very smart, and i think that you are very good for ATS, (YOU REALLY DO MAKE THINGS INTERESTING.>LOL

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


You said...
You don't think Pfizer would LOVE to market every other drug they produce with the tagline "From Pfizer - the company that cured diabetes"? Seriously?"

I ON THE OTHER HAND SAY...
SERIOUSLY > NOPE ! I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE GOOD PEOPLE AT PFIZER CAN DO, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO JUST FINE WITHOUT ANY USE OF SUCH A TAGLINE.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by alpha68]

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


School obviously hasn't started yet, becuase if it did, I believe you wouldn't have been able to be around here to make your crack at the time of the day that you made it. UNLESS...YOU WERE ON A LAPTOP AT RECESS OF COURSE, KNOW WHAT I'M SAY'IN ?