If only we could know what healthy cholesterol is... as its made by the body I kinda think that the body may be able to regulate it so using drugs to do the same may not be a great idea...
If only we could know what healthy cholesterol is... as its made by the body I kinda think that the body may be able to regulate it so using drugs to do the same may not be a great idea...You seem to have missed off the conclusion there.
'Hypolipidemia is a common disorder affecting about 2–3% of apparently healthy individuals and up to 6% of hospitalized patients. It might be a marker for an underlying, serious problem. '
Marker being the key word, not 'cause'
Each to his own though, I've always gone for mainstream health care, and my body seems to work accordingly,
I'll keep my cholesterol healthy for me, and eat to suit.
if others prefer to choose a different option and actively drive cholesterol up, maybe they'll be proved right one day.
I'm genuinely pleased that it doesn't affect everyone in exactly the same way, sorry it may very well have helped you develop type II. You're probably aware that in the U.S. of A. there is a class action against the manufacturer, not sure what stage they're at. The upper leg pain is quite bad and in my case still present. I also know that I have low levels of CoQ10 which could be attributed to old age but how much and why doesn't every old person feel the same leg pain no one can tell me.
If only we could know what healthy cholesterol is... as its made by the body I kinda think that the body may be able to regulate it so using drugs to do the same may not be a great idea...
Not if you feed them the right things....Yes, you'd think that wouldn't you.
But then again, I guess this forum exists because our bodies kinda suck at regulating things they're supposed to.
All cause mortality includes cancers. CVE does not (usually). There is also a possible link to Alzheimers, and Parkinsons, as shown in the article I posted above. There are other potential candidates listed there. Did you read that article properly, or just speed read it? Anyway, one of us is going to die before the other, so I shall say Goodbye while I can.Maybe everyone with high LDL died before they were 60, or 80?
And is 'all cause mortality' particularly relevant?
Either way, until I get to 60, I think I'll go along with the studies that show increasing risk is associated with increasing LDL, which even this review doesn't disagree with.
Not if you feed them the right things....
Well if we could all say that with confidence then we wouldn't be here...I'm good with weight, cholesterol, liver and kidneys, BP and BG.
So, overall, I guess that's a very true statement.
I wonder if we all can say the same?
All cause mortality includes cancers. CVE does not (usually). There is also a possible link to Alzheimers, and Parkinsons, as shown in the article I posted above. There are other potential candidates listed there. Did you read that article properly, or just speed read it? Anyway, one of us is going to die before the other, so I shall say Goodbye while I can.
Well if we could all say that with confidence then we wouldn't be here...
How did you get on @JohnEGreen ?I stopped taking them for quite a while then I got diagnosed with AAA and was advised to take them so now I am taking them again much against my better judgement. When I have my next appointment with Cardio-Vascular consultant am going to discuss with him the advisability of continuing with them.
Not as long as tobacco. Also it took a while to accept that thalidomide was actually responsible for the birth defects. The jury is still out on Prozac. I was on Actos for many years despite the rumblings. I found the statistical evidence for Actos and Avandia that they used for their licence application showed abnormalities that seemed to suppress their stroke mortality rate, I found similar abnormalities in the statin data that I managed to get access to. There is no way that you will convince me that statins are good, just as it seems noone here will affect your decision, so lets leave it at that. It's becoming booring.I assume you read it correctly?
No causal link, just a marker,
If the conspiracy theorists are correct, I'm sure our generation will see a very clear link from statin users all dropping dead from all the 'all cases' listed.
But then again, they've been in use for around 20 years, it seems odd that the evidence isn't there yet?
Not as long as tobacco. Also it took a while to accept that thalidomide was actually responsible for the birth defects. The jury is still out on Prozac. I was on Actos for many years despite the rumblings. I found the statistical evidence for Actos and Avandia that they used for their licence application showed abnormalities that seemed to suppress their stroke mortality rate, I found similar abnormalities in the statin data that I managed to get access to. There is no way that you will convince me that statins are good, just as it seems noone here will affect your decision, so lets leave it at that. It's becoming booring.
you old charmer you...I wouldn't try to convince you, but it seems many others do insist on trying to do that at times.
However if you are becoming bored, I do hope your ignore button isn't broken?
There was when statins were first developed a proposal that CoQ10 should be included in the tablets this was not done. When placed on statins really CoQ10 should be prescribed as well this is rarely if ever done.
There is a school of thought that statins damage the production of CoQ10 so badly that the body never truly recovers from it and that once the damage is done unfortunately taking CoQ10 supplements is of little use.
I hope that that is not the case as I have been taking statins many years and am taking CoQ10 to try and repair things.
Your first point refers to the patent application of 1990 that I mention. I am especially angry about this because I was given such BS by my GP. It's quite possible that he would not have known but he tried me with three different excuses for my muscle pain over a couple of years. NICE and the NHS should really have been well aware of this patent application, Merck weren't even trying to hide why they wanted to add CoQ10, maybe just hide the patent.
Having stopped statins for over 3 years, my present muscle pain would fit in with the idea that the problems might be irreversible (I had read this in some of the many books that the likes of Rory Collins like to call conspiracy theories) especially as I have had some blood and urine tests that show low CoQ10 levels which are actually causing other problems as well.
I have also read that taking CoQ10 orally may not fix the problem, possibly because the gut breaks it down before it gets into the blood. That might suggest taking it "the French way" (apologies to France) or up the derriere as it's very quickly absorbed into the blood stream and you can buy it. What I need to do is ramp up taking my Ubiquinol again and measure CoQ10 after a period of time to see what's going on.
That was the premise behind the newer delivery system by
https://www.mitoq.com/uk/mitoq-university/mitoq-advanced-coq-technology/
I have a friend who was on the original trial, and it seems to have had very positive effects.
(Not diabetic, but a metabolic syndrome none the less)
The price now is more than they can afford to continue with, so it may be back to the reduced version of CoQ10, Ubiquinol, again for them as well, but from their experience it wasn't as effective.
(Cheaper CoQ10 had no effect at all)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?