Are the medical parameters always true indicators of good or bad health?

“can you clean them naturally with good health habits after there has been build up?”
I am neither an MD nor an MS but I have undergone bypass surgery of one artery and 2 veins on 29/12/2009. Then I studied literature on life after open heart surgery. I came to the following conclusions .
1..De-emergencize life
2.No smoking. I have not smoked from the day I was admitted to the operating hospital.
3.Minimize the oily foods
4.Increase intake of vegetables,fruits and spices particularly garlic,onion, green chilly, ginger and others.
5.Keep all the excretory processes of the body well regulated.
6.Regular exercise a must.I do chosen regular exercises including very strenuous ones like Progressive muscle relaxation, kumbhak, Nataraj positions and urdha padmasan for about one and half hours daily.
7.These are do or die for me.
8.Be not stereotyped. Continue amending life style.
So I have discontinued medication since June 15,2010. I am fine but I do not know what the medical parameters will show. But again are the medical parameters always true indicators of good or bad health?

[ed34]

Good Doctors will not prescribe medication unless necessary. If I go to my Doctor and say "I feel fine", she will not prescribe anything unless a blood test states otherwise. For example, if you are rushed to hospital because you are having a stroke, do you A) have clot busting medication , OR B) say "don't worry, I will eat fruit and veg instead".
In many cases what you say is probably valid, but it would be wiser to take the medication and then see if you can improve things with natural means. If you do manage, then the medications can be gradually removed.
" true indicators of good or bad health?", Yes I believe they are. If you have elevated enzymes and chest pains, then your heart is not in good health. There are many markers in the blood which point to different organ dysfunction. People with heart transplants need anti-rejection medication, without this they would die. I don't know of any lifestyle change which can alter this.

[jrbon]

According to my experience,  medical parameters, if confirmed (manipulation/operator errors are possible) are good indicators of bad health. However it is very difficult to say that somebody has good health,  there are so many parameters to check and many unknown diseases....  

Jesus

[Jogeshwar]

"Good Doctors will not prescribe medication unless necessary"
What do you mean by 'Good doctors'?Roughly what is their percentage?How easily they are accessible?

2." if you are rushed to hospital because you are having a stroke, do you A) have clot busting medication , OR B) say "don't worry, I will eat fruit and veg instead"."

LOL for the inference.Are you hurt dear?

[Jogeshwar]

Thanks

[ed34]

No I'm not hurt, but I do think it can be a dangerous thing to plant seeds of doubt into patients, regarding Doctors and medication.
Doctors go through many years of training and are kept up to date with latest research. They swear an oath, and I refuse to believe they are out to do us harm. Sure there are a very very low number of Doctors who probably don't have the right ethics, but the odds of finding one are virtually zero. You claim to have stopped your medications and have changed your lifestyle in many ways, but it seems you believe everyone should do the same. I totally disagree. What tests have you had to confirm this? Where is the research data with a good number of subjects? Claims are no good without proper scientific backup. 'Feeling' better doesn't really mean much, we need to see what's actually going on inside.
Let me give you a good example. Many patients have had stem cell trials, where stem cells have been injected into heart muscle to see if dead scar tissue will have new muscle formed over it. Before the trials, every patient had an EKG, Echo, Stress Echo and Nuclear scan. After the trial, the same tests were run. We have 2 contradictory sets of results. One is from the majority of patients who say they actually feel better. The other is from the tests which show there is absolutely no difference in heart function or muscle mass. Who do you believe? the placebo effect? or reality?

[Jogeshwar]

" it seems you believe everyone should do the same. I totally disagree."
Your first conjecture is wrong and your disagreement is right.I have right to expression and I am doing so just to explore others' insight . I wonder how you expect that millions of doctors around the world will be disbelieved just by the version of an erstwhile patient(or a patient). I am expressing only that insight which I have applied on myself successfully or unsuccessfully. Every one is the best judge of himself/herself and if he/she errs then he/she will be ditched and none can help him/her.

     I never had stroke.So I have neither experience of pathology nor insight.Let us talk of some other insight which I had.Here it is below.

[Jogeshwar]

In the ICU when I opened my eyes I saw the anesthesiologist there to watch me.A ver very nice person. To stop my inquisitiveness he advised "Please do not apply your mind.Only adhere to our advice".I did that in that juncture meticulously.

    Now I did not know why there were crepe bandages on my legs. Veins were taken.So there were injuries.I thought to protect the injuries the bandages were there.At one point of time the nurse said that the crepes are there to minimize swelling. In any case after some days the bandages were removed.
                    So every time when I visited the cardiologist the cardiologist looked at my mildly swellen legs and prescribed something to control/heal swelling. On 15/6/2010 he prescribed 2 drugs for this purpose.I bought none. I was already doing two tough exercises for legs.I added the third exercise.Leg swelling disappeared.Believe it or not swelling never reccured..My legs are fine.

How do you explain it or any body explains it? I will reveal my insight later.

Disclaimer. Every one is the best judge of himself/herself and if he/she errs then he/she will be ditched and none can help him/her.

[Jogeshwar]

"Doctors go through many years of training and are kept up to date with latest research. They swear an oath, and I refuse to believe they are out to do us harm."Ed34
A wise person knows that he/she knows less than what he/she does not know.

I think a seeker of truth in nature will not be aversive to the presentations of my experiences.

[Red_Star]

Medical tests in regards to cholesterol are disheartening (excuse the pun lol). Over half (some state 80%) have a heart attack with normal cholesterol levels.  

Causes of heart disease - inflammation and oxidation. Plenty of antioxidants in the diet (fruits, vegetables etc) are needed to fight oxidation. Inflammation markers for heart attack risk -  homocysteine and C- Reactive Protein. Healthy homocysteine levels are around 6.3umol/L and healthy CRP levels are under 1mg/L.

"Did you know that Homocysteine is the primary cause of seriously debilitating conditions like Stroke, Heart Attack, Coronary Heart Disease, Cancer, Diabetes, Osteoporosis, Dementia and Alzheimer's. Elevated levels of Homocysteine is like having countless slivers of glass moving through your bloodstream slicing and shredding your most delicate tissues inside your arteries and brain."

What Are the Risk Factors for High Homocysteine (HCY) Levels?

You may be at risk if you have a family history of:

Heart disease
Stroke
Alzheimer's disease
Osteoporosis
Diabetes
You have low levels of vitamin B12, B6 and Folic Acid
You experience gastric disturbances, breathing difficulties or kidney problems
You are over age 50
You are pregnant
You are experiencing high stress levels
You eat a poor diet
You don't exercise regularly
You drink or smoke excessively

Highly recommended book:

The H Factor Solution: Homocysteine, the Best Single Indicator of Whether You Are Likely to Live Long or Die Young - James Braly MD, Patrick Holford.

[Jogeshwar]

Thanks.
Are the conclusions  drawn on the basis of statistical correlations or on the basis of hypothetico-deductive method experimentations?
The former type of researches do not establish causality.

[ed34]

"inflammation and oxidation"
Well I agree with inflammation but oxidation? Oxidation of what? Are you referring to the release of free radicals during oxidation? which of course are impossible to avoid, they are all over the universe. Any chemical reaction or atoms colliding will cause free radicals, we breathe millions in with each breath. There have been an array of clinics claiming to be able to cleanse your body of free radicals for decades, yet of course this is not possible. Every time one of our billions of cells uses oxygen to create energy, whoosh, out pop free radicals, mostly in the form of electrons looking to bond with another atom. Even after death, chemical reactions in the decay process form free radicals, so there's no escape. Experiments with mice have shown increase/decrease in free radicals has no difference. They have existed as long as life and from conception we are putting up with them. If they are so dangerous, we should all have over growing cancers and artery disease by the age of 1. Our bodies are very well designed for making repairs and this of course relies on good health.
I'm intrigued with the Homocysteine, I will certainly be raising this with my cardiologist on my next appointment. I also want to ask about how high levels of Adrenaline may cause harm. I'm sure that in a relaxed state, we all have different levels still.

[Occupant]

Although I am not speaking for Red_Star, I think, this is what he meant:
"Although scientists still do not understand all the steps in the development of atherosclerosis, it is known that oxidized LDL in the artery wall are taken up (engulfed) by macrophages, scavenger cells that have been drawn to the site by oxidized LDL. When they become engorged with the oxidized LDL, the macrophages become foam cells, the hallmark of atherosclerotic plaques. It is possible that CRP may bind to oxidized LDL and further enhance the uptake into cells."
And then there is also this:
"The serum concentration of oxLDL is strongly influcenced by diet. One dietary determinant of oxLDL is dietary polyunsaturated fat (PUFA). PUFA are inherently susceptible to oxidative damage, compared to monounsaturated and saturated fats."

[erijon]

You offered some good information, however the comment that half the people having heart attacks have a normal cholesterol level is a bit misleading. There are several reasons, first is that fact that by only looking at the people that have heart attacks as your control group, you do not take into account the millions of people with normal cholesterol that never develop heart disease, there is nothing to compare this number to therefore it is statistically incorrect. Your are taking a subset of moralities and drawing a conclusion, in order for this statement to be accurate you would have to compare the number of people with normal cholesterol levels against all mortality causes. It would be like saying 50% of those who died of skin cancer did not die from cancer rather a result such as pulmonary arrest, a know end result of cancer, while trying to make the point that the cancer was irrelevant.  

Also, remember that there are several mechanisms that cause heart attacks like electrical issues, vasospasms, cardiomyopathies and congenital defects so yes, it is possible that half the people with heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels, however that has nothing to to do with cholesterol in many cases, you don't need blockages to have a heart attack. This over used and misleading statement is like trying to develop a correlation between wearing glasses and car accidents, totally irrelevant.

[Red_Star]

A video that worth watching is on youtube. Just type into the youtube search bar:

Ginger: An Extraordinary Spice to Combat Heart Disease

This particular video is pretty good explanation of oxidation and inflammation; this video mentions CRP as the inflammation marker. Okay some of the music is suspect lol. I guess what i should of said is the two primary causes of heart disease is inflammation and oxidative stress.  

Heart attacks can occur from other reasons besides heart disease of course. Having had a severe magnesium deficiency, i had serious heart rhythm problems and my mitral valve calcified to some degree so a severe magnesium deficiency is one cause of a heart attack that i am aware of.

In the H Factor solution book i recall reading about a two month old infant had a form of rapidly progressive arteriosclerosis from homocystinuria (rare genetic condition that causes extremely high homocysteine levels). This is one amino acid you want in healthy levels! :)

[erijon]

So your comment;

>>Heart attacks can occur from other reasons besides heart disease of course.<<

Doesn't that make the whole "50% of people that have heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels" statement kind of a useless and moot point?

[Red_Star]

I don't think so.  Heart attacks most often occur as a result of coronary heart disease.

[erijon]

True, but it shows how useles that comment is. If there are more causes than CAD, then you can't ignore everyone else with normal cholesterol that don't develop CAD, the statement is meant to scare people, there is no science behind it.

[ed34]

I read on the internet once that 75% of heart attacks thru cad are in patients with normal cholesterol. I told my cardiologist this and he said "if I believe everything that's on the internet, I would be eating lunch with Elvis in McDonalds and watching UFO's in the car park".

[Jogeshwar]

Thanks.
Are the conclusions  drawn on the basis of statistical correlations or on the basis of hypothetico-deductive method experimentations  ?
The former type of researches do not establish causality.

I do not see by what method conclusions are drawn.

[erijon]

Definition;

"The hypothetico-deductive model is a proposed description of scientific method. According to it, scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. A test that could and does run contrary to predictions of the hypothesis is taken as a falsification of the hypothesis. A test that could but does not run contrary to the hypothesis corroborates the theory. It is then proposed to compare the explanatory value of competing hypotheses by testing how stringently they are corroborated by their predictions." (Wiki)

All medical trials are done to determine statistical correlations which are then used to determine causality by the indications drawn, this is much less complicated than you are making it sound. It is all one scientific method. In other disciplines such as chemical or structural engineering, the hypothetico-deductive model is used exclusively, not in medicine.

[Jogeshwar]

"All medical trials are done to determine statistical correlations which are then used to determine causality by the indications drawn, this is much less complicated than you are making it sound. It is all one scientific method. In other disciplines such as chemical or structural engineering, the hypothetico-deductive model is used exclusively, not in medicine. "

Thanks. Some 20 years back a research proposal submitted to an apex medical funding organisation by a medical college principal was sent to me for vetting/reviewing- It was "effect of moon on crime".This is an illustration of correlation.Certainly correlations do NOT establish causality but help to make scientific queries to formulate hypothetico-deductive methods. It is a level in scientific investigation.You just can not jump to causality from correlation. Your above quoted version impresses that the whole medical world does that.Even still then the conclusions fall short of causality in scientific plane. It is your choice whether or not you accept it.

[erijon]

"You just can not jump to causality from correlation. Your above quoted version impresses that the whole medical world does that"

Not my point at all, the point I'm making is that correlations are established and used to indicate causality which leads to additional hypothetical-deductive queries. Medical studies are aimed at specific end points when designed, the correlations that are drawn don't always lead to the end points expected. For this reason there needs to be statistical connection to all aspects including causality. I understand your point and can't necessarily shoot holes in it, much is left to personal acceptance.

[ed34]

As with artery disease, the cause is not fully understood and probably won't be until a few more years minimum. However, I don't understand why medications which relieve symptoms and slow progression in the meantime should be seen as a negative thing. It statistics prove beyond doubt for example that statins slow progression in patients, then surely this would be a good reason to use them. It is not a cure, but it's the best we have until a cure is found. A cure won't be found until we understand the cause and even then the cure could be many years after.
One thing which has confused science for many years is the placebo effect. As I said before, does stem cell therapy really help or is it all in the mind. Tests show there is no change yet the majority of patients claim to feel better and even show more exertion. Can the mind be tricked into believing things have been improved and as such ignore symptoms perhaps. I remember watching an experiment on TV where 10 people with severe sleeping disorders took part. They were all told a new drug has been developed which will take away all the problems. After taking a pill each evening for a week, they were all interviewed for the results. 9 were sleeping normally, and just 1 found a slight improvement. The pills? they were just sugar.
Perhaps the mind should be the first target in any therapy, putting things into true perspective. For example, after my first heart attack and first stent, I was told I was at VERY high risk of another attack or stroke. I was scared stiff and felt like a walking time bomb. Perhaps it would have been better to say I was at the same risk as anyone else, which isn't really too far from the truth because we are all prone to heart attacks for different reasons. I knew about my disease, right down to which part of each vessel it existed, millions of people have no idea. If I felt the symptoms I would know what it was and get to hospital fast, thousands just put it down to indigestion and end up dead. So perhaps just putting it a different way to patients in the beginning would assist the mind much more in acceptance and getting on with lifestyle changes. Stress from the fear is hardly going to improve matters.

[Jogeshwar]

""You just can not jump to causality from correlation. Your above quoted version impresses that the whole medical world does that"

Not my point at all," erijon

[erijon]

I'm sorry, am I supposed to understand your point?

[Red_Star]

It's not a scare tactic but a simple fact that over half the people who have a heart attack with normal cholesterol levels.

[Jogeshwar]

Excerpts from the above discussion:
Jogeshwar-"All medical trials are done to determine statistical correlations which are then used to determine causality by the indications drawn, this is much less complicated than you are making it sound. It is all one scientific method. In other disciplines such as chemical or structural engineering, the hypothetico-deductive model is used exclusively, not in medicine. " erijon

Certainly correlations do NOT establish causality but help to make scientific queries to formulate hypothetico-deductive methods. It is a level in scientific investigation.You just can not jump to causality from correlation. Your above quoted version impresses that the whole medical world does that.Even still then the conclusions fall short of causality in scientific plane. It is your choice whether or not you accept it.
Erijon-"You just can not jump to causality from correlation. Your above quoted version impresses that the whole medical world does that"

Not my point at all, the point I'm making is that correlations are established and used to indicate causality which leads to additional hypothetical-deductive queries. Medical studies are aimed at specific end points when designed, the correlations that are drawn don't always lead to the end points expected. For this reason there needs to be statistical connection to all aspects including causality. I understand your point and can't necessarily shoot holes in it, much is left to personal acceptance.

Jogeshwar-""You just can not jump to causality from correlation. Your above quoted version impresses that the whole medical world does that"

Not my point at all," erijon

erijon-I'm sorry, am I supposed to understand your point?
-----------------

Jogeshwar-Are we heading towards clarity or maintaining confusion? Does any body else understand my point please?

[ed34]

Personally, I thought this was a forum about heart disease, not about conspiracy theories, politics, financial gain and false statistics etc ?
Do we understand what you mean? yes of course. Causality is the first step in something which has an effect. For example, with CAD the cause is artery lining damage causing the effect of CAD. Correlation can refer to any two things, but in this example I assume you mean the mathematical relationship between the cause and effect.
Do you have an example of experiments/research which do not seek to establish causality?

[ed34]

I think we are going around in circles here. Heart attacks have various causes, not just artery disease. The biggest cause however is artery disease. The far majority of patients who have heart attacks due to CAD do have high cholesterol. What you are doing by saying "heart attack victims" is including all heart attacks not caused by CAD and hence do not need high cholesterol, such as vasospasm. It still stands as fact that the majority of heart attacks occur due to CAD, and the majority by far of these have high cholesterol. I am not convinced that 50% of heart attack victims have normal cholesterol, and it would be interesting to know where you obtained this 'fact'?

[Red_Star]

"ScienceDaily (Jan. 12, 2009) — A new national study has shown that nearly 75 percent of patients hospitalized for a heart attack had cholesterol levels that would indicate they were not at high risk for a cardiovascular event, based on current national cholesterol guidelines." from the article Most Heart Attack Patients' Cholesterol Levels Did Not Indicate Cardiac Risk.

An excellent article that i agree with 100%, not to mention it's backed up by numerous clinical trials, is by Chris Kressler called Cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease.

[Red_Star]

I spelt his name wrong oops! ;) Chris Kresser

[ed34]

Interesting article but again very misleading. The article actually states that the patients in question had normal LDL but low HDL. Of course this means that the ratio is all wrong. HDL manages the LDL and if there is low HDL, then you naturally have high LDL because it isn't being managed properly. It's all about ratio. When my Cardiologist was monitoring my cholesterol, he aimed for a 2 to 1 ratio of LDL to HDL. This makes it easier for the body to control the level of fat.
If you have 10 basketballs full of fat and you burst them over the floor, then obviously this results in a lot of fat to be cleaned up. Now you have 5 empty basketballs which can suck up fat, that means half the fat will be removed. What if you only have 1 or 2? that would leave a much bigger mess.
I have no idea why they even bother to print such articles, when they know full well that the ratio is important. Other experts will simply read it and giggle. Is it just a way to advertise their names?

[Jogeshwar]

"Personally, I thought this was a forum about heart disease, not about conspiracy theories, politics, financial gain and false statistics etc ?
Do we understand what you mean? yes of course. Causality is the first step in something which has an effect. For example, with CAD the cause is artery lining damage causing the effect of CAD. Correlation can refer to any two things, but in this example I assume you mean the mathematical relationship between the cause and effect.
Do you have an example of experiments/research which do not seek to establish causality?"ed34

Thanks for understanding what I mean.Then your question at bottom does not require any answer particularly  because it may strengthen your theory
in the first line further.But I like to mention that medical community was responsible for jailing Mesmer a medical graduate alleging his hypnosis as fake. Still later Charcot the most antagonist of medical hypnotism admitted it as a fact.The great controversy between Wolfgang Kohler and Nobel laureate(1904)Ivan Petrovitch Pavlov ended with the admission by the latter as associationism and conditioning are identical and they merge together.Charcot and Pavlov stand for great intellectual honesty in the medical history.

   What I mean here that medical professionals too have motivations,emotions and obsessions.

[ed34]

Perhaps it is easier to get away with honesty in some countries more than others. It depends on the systems put into place to regulate the activities. Here in the UK it would be very difficult to get away with malpractice now. There are so many governing bodies and regular Doctors act as a buffer between the patient and consultant. The internet is also a powerful tool, one tiny example is forums such as this, where people ask questions.

[Jogeshwar]

Does it mean that diagnosis and treatment is foolproof in UK?

[erijon]

Chris Kresser, I have read his works before and I can tell you they are NOT based on medical studies or trials. Let's understand who he is, Chris Kresser is a licensed Acupuncturist based in the Bay area that is trying to get a degree in Integrative Medicine (Holistic/Chinese discipline, not an MD). He has not been to medical school, is not going to medical school and is not a M.D, he specializes in writing articles that go against what he calls the "common medical myths". People have been quoting his work for years, yet no one in the medical community takes him very seriously.

What he likes to do is pull together pieces of studies, gather a collection of "facts" that support his position and write an article, nothing more. What you are reading is his opinion, not the result of any independent study that shows the correlation between cholesterol and heart attacks.

The statement you make is a scare tactic, nothing more. By saying that "50% of people with heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels" you are trying to say there is no correlation between cholesterol levels and heart disease which is just plain wrong. As Ed pointed out, in the article you referred to the control group being studied was classified as low HDL. The study he pulled his information from was a study designed to determine the link between low HDL and heart disease, which it showed. OF COURSE THESE INDIVIDUALS HAD A LOW TOTAL CHOLESTEROL, THEIR HDL WAS 30 OR BELOW. This understates their total cholesterol levels as a whole, but by using this particular control group and study he can make a statement like the one you quoted.

Most everyone else sees through his work, there is really no substance there.

[erijon]

"Jogeshwar-Are we heading towards clarity or maintaining confusion? Does any body else understand my point please?"

There is no confusion, I understand the direction you're going, I don't agree with it, nothing more.

[ed34]

"Does it mean that diagnosis and treatment is foolproof in UK?"

Nothing is foolproof and you know that. If you want perfection, you are on the wrong planet. I will now stop responding to further posts in this thread because they have become just plain silly now in my opinion.

[erijon]

Ed,

I'm glad you were able to see through that article. It points out the problem with the Internet, anyone can make a fancy website, do a little research and write articles and people read them without looking into the background.

Let's think of the ridiculous nature of the statement "75% of people with heart attacks have a normal cholesterol level" for a minute. The statement in itself may be true, depending on what you look at. The reality is that some one with an LDL of 150, and HDL of 25 and normal TGLs has a cholesterol level under 200, the recommended number. This individual has a horrendous lipid profile which would make them very predisposed to CAD, yet if they have a heart attack some author can say "look, he died of a heart attack yet had a normal total cholesterol", it's just nonsense.

What is frustrating about people like the guy that wrote that article is that he did not participate in the study he quotes yet he is giving his own interpretation and opinion. If he really feels that way, why doesn't he pony up the millions of dollars it takes to do a study and see how many people with heart attacks have a healthy lipid profile, that is the true indicator, not just their TC.

Just nonsense.

[ed34]

I agree, and to also believe because there are maybe one or two bad Doctors per several thousand that we should mistrust their judgement is also idiotic. It is also idiotic to believe medications are not necessary. Sure, I could stop all my meds today, and would notice nothing for a few years. I could claim for those few years that I didn't need them and they were a waste of money/time. I could also start claiming a conspiracy that it's all about money. However, 5-10 years down the line I'm sure my arteries would be a real big mess again. To make claims in a short period of time is not a predictor of the future.
I assume that if they found a pill that removed all plaque from arteries, those people wouldn't take it because it's all about money. (want to make any bets) I think they would.

[Jogeshwar]

Oct 21, 2011
erijon"I'm sorry, am I supposed to understand your point?"
21 hours before
erijon""Jogeshwar-Are we heading towards clarity or maintaining confusion? Does any body else understand my point please?"

There is no confusion, I understand the direction you're going, I don't agree with it, nothing more. "
One is the best judge of himself/herself but if he/she errs then he/she will be ditched and none can help him/her.Best of luck. bye

[Red_Star]

The Kresser article is just one of millions on the net. Dozens of books go into more detail. One book really gets to the heart of why we are still being fed the faulty lipid hypothesis....

$29 Billion Reasons to Lie About Cholesterol: Making Profit by Turning Healthy People into Patients by Justin Smith

[ed34]

Justin Smith is someone who would know? As far as I know he got a degree in engineering, then spent 4 years as a fitness/nutrition coach?
I have to ask what his real qualifications are and is he just out to make money by selling books.
Look, it is obvious, and any Doctor knows this and recommends it, that if you start soon enough, a healthy diet, no smoking, no excess alcohol, regular exercise etc etc will give your a healthier life. However, it's a bit too late for the millions who already have the disease. No amount of bananas is going to remove the plaque.

[Red_Star]

Many MD's have written about the faulty cholesterol hypothesis.  And studies show that adding palm oil into the diet can remove plaque build up in arteries and therefore reverse the process of atherosclerosis. This has been demonstrated in both animal and human studies.

[ed34]

I have just looked through the $29billion . c o m  website and looked at some interviews given by Doctors. They still say that prescribing statins to patients with existing heart disease is advised because research has shown they do help. However, the debate is really over whether people with no heart disease should have statins as a preventative measure. There is no doubt with Doctors that Statins should be given to patients with heart disease. Research does show that it does help, but in more ways than one. It reduces the levels of small particle LDL and large, but also it reduces artery inflammation caused by a variety of things.
You seem sure about cholesterol and you seem to believe the claims made against statins, so how about a little challenge. I'm sure all the Doctors against statins have email addresses, so perhaps you could find just ONE, who would sign a document saying I am safe to come off statins. My Cholesterol total serum was 9mmol/L (348 mg/dl) thanks to familial hypercholesterolemia. I had severe triple vessel disease and now after a triple bypass and 10 stents, things are pretty much back to normal. My cholesterol total serum is now 4mmol/L (154mg/dl). So, just ONE signature to say that if I stop statins and allow my cholesterol to rocket to 9mmol/L again, that I will be just fine. If they are so confident about their claims, then this will not be an issue, they will all gladly sign a document.
My belief is that NOT ONE would sign it. They don't have the real belief in what they claim. They just want their names noticed and to make a lot of money from it.

[erijon]

Justin Smith, another person I want to get my medical advice from. An Engineer by education that "specializes in writing articles about heart health and nutrition" according to his bio, really? Again, what you are reading with this book is pure speculation developed by looking at studies and trials he WAS NOT involved in and coming to his own opinion. There is no new fact based data here developed by Justin Smith, just one man's personal opinion.Don't kid yourself, he wrote the book because he knew it would make money, not to help the masses.

I have said it before, if any of these ant-statin, cholesterol is good for you experts is so sure of their positions, please raise the money, get some from the NIH as they are more than willing to give it to you and do your own study to prove your point. Stop analyzing everyone else's hard work so you can pick out the statements that fit your theory and write a book to make money, go prove what you are saying. Why should these guys have the right to throw anything in print without backing it up. They are writing fiction and it should be in the fiction section of your local book store. This book is particularly offensive as he writes about the evil drug companies making money on their products but do the profits from his book go to charity? I don't think so, it goes right to his bank account. A bit of a hypocrite I would say.

Here are the studies, these are fact, not fiction;

http://www.jewishhospitalcincinnati.com/cholesterol/Research/ROLE_LDL_CHOLESTEROL_HDL_PREV_CORONARY_STROKE.html

[Red_Star]

I see this is like nailing jello to a wall. Let's agree to disagree shall we.

[erijon]

We can, but please understand one thing, I respect your opinion, you have a right to it and I appreciate that you take a stand, too many don't. I just want to make the point that research comes from two sources, those that do it and thos that analyize it, there is a huge difference.

Thanks for sharing.

[Red_Star]

Sure erijon. We all have our own opinions and like to voice them :) but it's nice to not have nasty comments (which i have received in another forum) when we don't all agree on the same subject.  Cheers. :)

[Occupant]

I've found ONE Nortin Hadler, Professor of Medicin at U. of North Carolina, who said when asked: "You're 62 - do you get your Cholesterol checked?" "I don't want to know. I would be infuriated if any doctor checked my Cholesterol without my asking and told me if it was up or down. I would think that would be an abuse of science that offered me a chance of feeling less well for no good reason."
This was in 2005, I kept a copy of the interview thinking it might come in handy one day.

[ed34]

This guy is strange indeed. He obviously expects HIS patients to have tests, but says "Nortin Hadler says he would sue any doctor who tried to test his cholesterol. Likewise, his bone density, prostate levels, colon cells, etc. "
He then goes on to make the statement, "you, too, should avoid these routine tests, as well as most angioplasties, bypass surgeries and routine mammograms. That's because -- contrary to what the medical establishment tells you -- the tests and procedures don't extend most lives, he says; they just convince healthy people they're sick"
I think thousands of Cardiologists would call him an idiot. All those people suffering heart attacks and having emergency bypass/stenting and are alive years later haven't had their lives extended? really? honestly?
If I hadn't had my first stent back in Feb 2007, I wouldn't be here today. I know that because the pains were unbearable, my heart rhythm was all over the place and I kept passing out. It would have taken a big miracle for me to recover from that without a stent. The blocked vessel was also responsible for supplying the collaterals into my LAD, and of course they were also shut down.
Why is ignorance a wise thing? if you feel chest pains why would you not want to save your heart? the guy is insane.

[Occupant]

He's testified before Congress and published papers arguing that there is very little data backing up the value of modern treatments like bypass surgery and angioplasty. And you forgot to mention that he also said: "There is only one subset of the population that's been proved to derive a meaningful benefit from the [bypass] surgery, and that's people with a critical defect of the left main coronary artery who also heve angina." And he goes on to say: "I am going [as a doctor] to do this procedure [angiogram] with a 1% risk of catastrophe to find the the 3% I know I can help a little. That's a very interesting trade-off."

[Jogeshwar]

A person's perspectives, his interpretation of units and segments of experience as well as totalities in life are gravely affected by his interests and attitudes. Right?

[Occupant]

I don't think he has a personal agenda. He is a medical doctor turned statistician and tries to look at and interpret available data on many subjects that affect his profession.

[Jogeshwar]

My observation is general and not directed to any specific person.

[Jogeshwar]

Are there no updates in this topic any further?

[erijon]

No, this dead horse has been beat enough............

[ed34]

amen to that.

[Jogeshwar]

Duty To Warn: Flu Shots, Fosamax and Pharmaceutical Fakery
http://preventdisease.com/news/11/110411_Flu-Shots-Fosamax-Pharmaceutical-Fakery-Misleading-Statistics-in-the-Medical-Literature.shtml

[erijon]

Why don't we end this discussion now, we are not here to discuss conspiracies and accusations. I'll be asking to have this entire thread deleted if possible, it's not really going anywhere.

Jon

[Lira_MHModerator]

***************THIS THREAD IS CLOSED TO NEW POSTS***************

This conversation appears to have run its course, as evidenced by the lack of posts over the last week.  Rather than restart what has been a controversial discussion, please start a new thread if you wish to have a related conversation.

[overcome76]

If you could, please tell me what is the exercise for your legs that you do.

Thank you

[Jogeshwar]

Thanks.
1.Approximate Nataraj positions by either legs and by either hands in quick sequence.Here is the search link https://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=nataraj&oq=nataraj&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=hp.1.0.0l4.2012l6835l0l13041l7l6l0l1l1l0l155l794l0j6l7l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e2c377401489ff77&biw=886&bih=463

I do 120 positions daily in the morning.You try and see how much you can do.

2.Hop 30 times in one leg and then hop  30 times by other leg.
3.Hop and Hit the buttocks by both heels together as many times as you can.

Please remember-Body is the biggest apothecary

[Jogeshwar]

Hello, could you try either any one or more of the exercises by now?
Best of luck

[Jogeshwar]

Well,could even any body else try either any one or more of the exercises by now?