Cholestrol: opinions please



K

Kevin Arouza

Guest
I recently had a checkup and here are my readings:

Total cholestrol is 188 mg/dL HDL : 38 mg/dL
LDL: 135 mg/dL
VLDL: 15 mg/dL. Blood pressure: Normal Trigycerides: 77 mg/dL Urine sugar: None

I am 29, height is 5-7, weight is around 140 lbs but I have a bit more fat weight than optimum. My
diet for the past 3 years has mostly been fast food, terrible I know :( but I am moderately active.

One doctor seemed to think I was in perfect health while another said that my cholestrol readings
were not optimum. Would love to hear any opinions?

Thanks, Kevin
 
D

Dr. Andrew B. C

Guest
[email protected] (Kevin Arouza) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I recently had a checkup and here are my readings:
>
> Total cholestrol is 188 mg/dL HDL : 38 mg/dL

Optimal is more than 45 mg/dL

> LDL: 135 mg/dL

Optimal is less than 100 mg/dL

> VLDL: 15 mg/dL. Blood pressure: Normal Trigycerides: 77 mg/dL Urine sugar: None
>
> I am 29, height is 5-7, weight is around 140 lbs but I have a bit more fat weight than optimum.

You might be about 5 pounds heavier than ideal.

> My diet for the past 3 years has mostly been fast food, terrible I know :( but I am moderately
> active.
>
> One doctor seemed to think I was in perfect health while another said that my cholestrol readings
> were not optimum. Would love to hear any opinions?

You have them.

> Thanks,

You are welome, Kevin :)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57
 
A

Al. Lohse

Guest
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Kevin Arouza) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > I recently had a checkup and here are my readings:
> >
> > Total cholestrol is 188 mg/dL HDL : 38 mg/dL
>
> Optimal is more than 45 mg/dL
>
> > LDL: 135 mg/dL
>
> Optimal is less than 100 mg/dL
>
> > VLDL: 15 mg/dL. Blood pressure: Normal Trigycerides: 77 mg/dL Urine sugar: None
> >
> > I am 29, height is 5-7, weight is around 140 lbs but I have a bit more fat weight than optimum.
>
> You might be about 5 pounds heavier than ideal.
>
> > My diet for the past 3 years has mostly been fast food, terrible I know :( but I am moderately
> > active.
> >
> > One doctor seemed to think I was in perfect health while another said that my cholestrol
> > readings were not optimum. Would love to hear any opinions?
>
> You have them.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> You are welome, Kevin :)
>
> Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/
>
> --
> Who is the humblest person in the universe?
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
>
> What is all this about?
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57

There is nothing wrong with using diet and/or exercise to alter your "lipid profile," and there is
no study that I know of that suggests such alteration would improve your outcome.

Then, "they" will want to drug you.

Consider:

http://www.ti.ubc.ca/PDF/48.pdf

Suggest you print out the two pages and present them to your doctor and discuss their, (certainly
not my) conclusion that:

"Therefore, statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary
prevention trials."

No doctor has refuted the conclusion of that study, and, as such, IMHO, it should be taken as fact.
The target numbers presented above, unless proven to have come from reliable studies, should be
taken as guideline numbers; Guidelines most probably developed (or purchased) by special interest
groups to help sell drugs.

For further reading, have a look at:

http://www.thincs.org

and discuss it with family and friends. It is most important that all information is brought out for
discussion. "thincs" might have things wrong, but no one has found anything wrong with their
assessment so far!

A.L.
 
L

listener

Guest
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:22:19 -0800, "Al. Lohse"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There is nothing wrong with using diet and/or exercise to alter your "lipid profile," and there is
>no study that I know of that suggests such alteration would improve your outcome.
>
>Then, "they" will want to drug you.
>
>Consider:
>
>http://www.ti.ubc.ca/PDF/48.pdf
>
>Suggest you print out the two pages and present them to your doctor and discuss their, (certainly
>not my) conclusion that:
>
>"Therefore, statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary
>prevention trials."

Interesting little two-pager. Let's go to the horses mouths:

From allhat.org:

"The study results do not alter current cholesterol treatment guidelines, which are based on a
series of clinical trials with larger cholesterol reductions than that observed in ALLHAT. Thus,
cholesterol lowering by lifestyle changes and drug treatment is recommended to reduce cardiovascular
disease morbidity and mortality."

From the Prosper Study:

"A longer-term trial or a greater number of elderly patients would be required to determine the
specific effects of pravastatin 40mg in elderly subjects without previous vascular disease."

Also:

"Pravastatin did not cause any significant increase in liver or muscle adverse events, including
rhabdomyolysis, in this highly susceptible patient population."

And:

"Pravastatin 40 mg achieved a significant reduction in the primary endpoint of PROSPER in 3.2 years.
This effect was achieved mainly by a reduction in CHD events rather than stroke. However, TIAs were
reduced by 25% indicating that pravastatin 40 mg did have an effect on the cerebrovascular system.

There was no change in cognitive function. These results are consistent with the Heart Protection
Study that there was no difference in cognitive function between patients treated with simvastatin
or placebo for 5 years.

Pravastatin 40 mg was safe and well tolerated in this older population even in those with multiple
co-morbidities and concomitant medications."

PROSPER shows that the benefit of pravastatin 40 mg observed in previous clinical trials of middle-
aged people was also observed in this older population. Therefore, it is important to treat at risk,
older patients with pravastatin.

[Of course, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company sponsored the PROSPER trials so the above should be
completely disregarded as it should also in your little two-page info sheet.Right? :) ]

ASCOT Study:

"Professor Björn Dahlöf from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Östra, Sweden and ASCOT study co-
chairman, adds: "At present, large numbers of people around the world are affected by high blood
pressure, with only normal or slightly raised cholesterol, causing significant levels of ill health
and mortality. This study shows that statins are effective, lowering cholesterol levels, and
reducing the likelihood of heart attacks and strokes."":

AFCAPS Study:

"The results of our study carry profound implications for all adults who think they are at low risk
of a heart attack," said Dr. Antonio Gotto, the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Cornell University
Medical College and Chairman and spokesman for the AFCAPS/TexCAPS steering committee.

Even if your LDL or 'bad' cholesterol isn't high, you still may be at risk for heart attack if your
HDL or 'good' cholesterol is too low," said Dr. Gotto. "Now we know that treatment with lovastatin
can significantly reduce risk of heart attack and other events so people can live healthier lives."

WOSCOP Study:

"We can say now with confidence that pravastatin reduces the risk of heart attack and death in a
broad range of people - not just those with established heart disease, as has been previously
proven, but also among those who are at risk for their first heart attack," said principal
investigator James Shepherd, M.B.Ch.B, PH.D., professor, University Department of Pathological
Biochemistry, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland.

Fascinating, huh?

(The original poster may want to print THIS out too and show his doctor....)
 
N

Nigel

Guest
Diet and exercise (particularly exercise) will have benefits to cardiovascular health and overall
health beyond simply changing lipid profiles.

Al is quite correct that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors have not been shown to reduce primary
mortality in the absence other risk factors. They are good for secondary prevention. See comments
following each of your points.

[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected] 4ax.com:

>
>
> Interesting little two-pager. Let's go to the horses mouths:
>
> From allhat.org:
>
> "The study results do not alter current cholesterol treatment guidelines, which are based on a
> series of clinical trials with larger cholesterol reductions than that observed in ALLHAT. Thus,
> cholesterol lowering by lifestyle changes and drug treatment is recommended to reduce
> cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality."
>

They do not separate drugs and lifestyle (diet and exercise) in their conclusion. They suggest
_both_. But if lifestyle is enough to gain the desired results, why bother with the drug?

> From the Prosper Study:
>
> "A longer-term trial or a greater number of elderly patients would be required to determine the
> specific effects of pravastatin 40mg in elderly subjects without previous vascular disease."
>

No demonstrable effect in primary prevention in the elderly (supports Al's point).

> Also:
>
> "Pravastatin did not cause any significant increase in liver or muscle adverse events, including
> rhabdomyolysis, in this highly susceptible patient population."
>

OK, there appears to be no statistically significant rise in adverse events.

> And:
>
> "Pravastatin 40 mg achieved a significant reduction in the primary endpoint of PROSPER in 3.2
> years. This effect was achieved mainly by a reduction in CHD events rather than stroke. However,
> TIAs were reduced by 25% indicating that pravastatin 40 mg did have an effect on the
> cerebrovascular system.
>
> There was no change in cognitive function. These results are consistent with the Heart Protection
> Study that there was no difference in cognitive function between patients treated with simvastatin
> or placebo for 5 years.
>
> Pravastatin 40 mg was safe and well tolerated in this older population even in those with multiple
> co-morbidities and concomitant medications."
>
> PROSPER shows that the benefit of pravastatin 40 mg observed in previous clinical trials of middle-
> aged people was also observed in this older population. Therefore, it is important to treat at
> risk, older patients with pravastatin.
>

Treating _at risk_ patients. It may be worth a look at the inclusion criteria. Patients had to have
existing vascular disease or be at increased risk for the development of vascular disease to be
included. This is not just poor lipid profiles.

> [Of course, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company sponsored the PROSPER trials so the above should be
> completely disregarded as it should also in your little two-page info sheet.Right? :) ]
>
> ASCOT Study:
>
> "Professor Björn Dahlöf from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Östra, Sweden and ASCOT study
> co-chairman, adds: "At present, large numbers of people around the world are affected by high
> blood pressure, with only normal or slightly raised cholesterol, causing significant levels of ill
> health and mortality. This study shows that statins are effective, lowering cholesterol levels,
> and reducing the likelihood of heart attacks and strokes."":
>
>

Again, look at the inclsuion criteria; patients had to have high blood pressure (i.e.
already at risk)

> AFCAPS Study:
>
> "The results of our study carry profound implications for all adults who think they are at low
> risk of a heart attack," said Dr. Antonio Gotto, the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Cornell
> University Medical College and Chairman and spokesman for the AFCAPS/TexCAPS steering committee.
>
> Even if your LDL or 'bad' cholesterol isn't high, you still may be at risk for heart attack if
> your HDL or 'good' cholesterol is too low," said Dr. Gotto. "Now we know that treatment with
> lovastatin can significantly reduce risk of heart attack and other events so people can live
> healthier lives."
>
>

From the actual study: Treatment with lovastatin 20 to 40 mg daily for primary prevention of
coronary heart disease was well tolerated and reduced the risk of first acute coronary events
without increasing the risk of either noncardiovascular mortality or cancer.

But we still don't have data on _mortality_. And one study does not make the final word, we need to
confirm the results with other studies.

> WOSCOP Study:
>
> "We can say now with confidence that pravastatin reduces the risk of heart attack and death in a
> broad range of people - not just those with established heart disease, as has been previously
> proven, but also among those who are at risk for their first heart attack," said principal
> investigator James Shepherd, M.B.Ch.B, PH.D., professor, University Department of Pathological
> Biochemistry, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland.
>
>

Patients in this study actually had to fail to produce reduction through diet modification before
being included.
 
L

listener

Guest
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:14:12 GMT, Nigel <I.don'[email protected]> wrote:

>Diet and exercise (particularly exercise) will have benefits to cardiovascular health and overall
>health beyond simply changing lipid profiles.

I do not disagree with that.

>Al is quite correct that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors have not been shown to reduce primary
>mortality in the absence other risk factors. They are good for secondary prevention. See comments
>following each of your points.

So, you do not see an issue with statin use for seconday prevention?

>They do not separate drugs and lifestyle (diet and exercise) in their conclusion. They suggest
>_both_. But if lifestyle is enough to gain the desired results, why bother with the drug?

MANY people are unable to effect and/or have great difficulty with lifestyle change. Having an
effective and safe alternative is a positive thing.

>
>> From the Prosper Study:
>>
>> "A longer-term trial or a greater number of elderly patients would be required to determine the
>> specific effects of pravastatin 40mg in elderly subjects without previous vascular disease."
>>
>
>No demonstrable effect in primary prevention in the elderly (supports Al's point).

>> Also:
>>
>> "Pravastatin did not cause any significant increase in liver or muscle adverse events, including
>> rhabdomyolysis, in this highly susceptible patient population."
>>
>
>OK, there appears to be no statistically significant rise in adverse events.
>

That's a big OK that others simply refuse to acknowledge.

>> And:
>>
>> "Pravastatin 40 mg achieved a significant reduction in the primary endpoint of PROSPER in 3.2
>> years. This effect was achieved mainly by a reduction in CHD events rather than stroke. However,
>> TIAs were reduced by 25% indicating that pravastatin 40 mg did have an effect on the
>> cerebrovascular system.
>>
>> There was no change in cognitive function. These results are consistent with the Heart Protection
>> Study that there was no difference in cognitive function between patients treated with
>> simvastatin or placebo for 5 years.
>>
>> Pravastatin 40 mg was safe and well tolerated in this older population even in those with
>> multiple co-morbidities and concomitant medications."
>>
>> PROSPER shows that the benefit of pravastatin 40 mg observed in previous clinical trials of middle-
>> aged people was also observed in this older population. Therefore, it is important to treat at
>> risk, older patients with pravastatin.
>>
>
>Treating _at risk_ patients. It may be worth a look at the inclusion criteria. Patients had to have
>existing vascular disease or be at increased risk for the development of vascular disease to be
>included. This is not just poor lipid profiles.

Understood.
>
>> [Of course, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company sponsored the PROSPER trials so the above should be
>> completely disregarded as it should also in your little two-page info sheet.Right? :) ]
>>
>> ASCOT Study:
>>
>> "Professor Björn Dahlöf from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Östra, Sweden and ASCOT study
>> co-chairman, adds: "At present, large numbers of people around the world are affected by high
>> blood pressure, with only normal or slightly raised cholesterol, causing significant levels of
>> ill health and mortality. This study shows that statins are effective, lowering cholesterol
>> levels, and reducing the likelihood of heart attacks and strokes."":
>>
>>
>
>Again, look at the inclsuion criteria; patients had to have high blood pressure (i.e.
>already at risk)

MANY people have high blood pressure.

>
>> AFCAPS Study:
>>
>> "The results of our study carry profound implications for all adults who think they are at low
>> risk of a heart attack," said Dr. Antonio Gotto, the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Cornell
>> University Medical College and Chairman and spokesman for the AFCAPS/TexCAPS steering committee.
>>
>> Even if your LDL or 'bad' cholesterol isn't high, you still may be at risk for heart attack if
>> your HDL or 'good' cholesterol is too low," said Dr. Gotto. "Now we know that treatment with
>> lovastatin can significantly reduce risk of heart attack and other events so people can live
>> healthier lives."
>>
>>
>
>From the actual study: Treatment with lovastatin 20 to 40 mg daily for primary prevention of
>coronary heart disease was well tolerated and reduced the risk of first acute coronary events
>without increasing the risk of either noncardiovascular mortality or cancer.
>
>But we still don't have data on _mortality_. And one study does not make the final word, we need to
>confirm the results with other studies.
>

Will there EVER be a final word on this isuue?

>> WOSCOP Study:
>>
>> "We can say now with confidence that pravastatin reduces the risk of heart attack and death in a
>> broad range of people - not just those with established heart disease, as has been previously
>> proven, but also among those who are at risk for their first heart attack," said principal
>> investigator James Shepherd, M.B.Ch.B, PH.D., professor, University Department of Pathological
>> Biochemistry, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland.
>>
>>
>
>Patients in this study actually had to fail to produce reduction through diet modification before
>being included.
>
So is Mr. Shephard lying about his study?

At least you make a distinction between primary and secondary prevention using statins, which the
crusaders against the use of statins apparently do not.
 
A

Al. Lohse

Guest
Nigel wrote:
>
> Diet and exercise (particularly exercise) will have benefits to cardiovascular health and overall
> health beyond simply changing lipid profiles.
>
> Al is quite correct that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors have not been shown to reduce primary
> mortality in the absence other risk factors. They are good for secondary prevention. See comments
> following each of your points.

I, Al, am not right.

I do not claim to be right.

I submit the most *probably* correct view on the subject. Fact is, treating cholesterol as a disease
has very little benefit to anyone. If benefits were large or even consistently measurable, there
would be no controversy whatsoever. The benefits are small, maybe tiny, maybe negligible. We may be
on the edge of defining "trivial." The rare adverse events are not as ignorable as some would have
us believe. Who would actually risk his life for a tiny potential benefit?

Unchallenged scientific assertions can be upheld as fact. No one has taken the cholesterol skeptics
on, nor has anyone taken on the Therapeutics Initiative at UBC. Why not?

Scientifically, the meta-analyses at UBC are overly optimistic. This is because ALL the studies
representing ALL the results are not available to them. What is available is large and huge publicly
funded studies and those privately funded studies which give an inkling of positive results. The
results of privately funded studies which fail to give desired results can be, and *probably* are
suppressed.

In the end, people, we are all in this together. Why not presents facts and encourage discussion in
order to try to get things right? No smoke or mirrors; No hoodwinkery.

Why not?
A.L.

> <<<<<<<<snipped >>>>>>
 
L

listener

Guest
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:27:28 -0800, "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]
a> wrote:

>Why not presents facts and encourage discussion in order to try to get things right?

I did. I have. It's hopeless. You and Sharon and badant are not *really* interested in discussion.
It's that simple. I've seen it happen many, many times: when someone, either a lay person like
myself or a doctor, posts contradictory citations and information it's either ignored or discredited
(or both! see below)

The lastest is Mrs. Hope's questioning a doctors ability to properly diagnose his own patients. How
would she know? The reason: He questioned her "statistics" with a valid arguement, which she
completely ignored

That's not my idea of a discussion.
 
B

Brad Sheppard

Guest
Hello Kevin,

good total chol, excellent weight - but HDL is low and trig could be lower. You may have the
beginnings of metabolic syndrome - is the fat you have around your belly? To increase HDL - exercise
more, have one drink daily, replace some carbs with "good" fats - olive oil, fats from fish, canola
oil. It's now a good time to ditch the fast food and junk food. Here's a great nutrition source:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/

[email protected] (Kevin Arouza) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I recently had a checkup and here are my readings:
>
> Total cholestrol is 188 mg/dL HDL : 38 mg/dL
> LDL: 135 mg/dL
> VLDL: 15 mg/dL. Blood pressure: Normal Trigycerides: 77 mg/dL Urine sugar: None
>
> I am 29, height is 5-7, weight is around 140 lbs but I have a bit more fat weight than
> optimum. My diet for the past 3 years has mostly been fast food, terrible I know :( but I am
> moderately active.
>
> One doctor seemed to think I was in perfect health while another said that my cholestrol readings
> were not optimum. Would love to hear any opinions?
>
> Thanks, Kevin
 
J

J Stutzmann

Guest
Check out this source of information:
http://www.aace.com/clin/guidelines/lipids.pdf

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp3full.pdf

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Kevin Arouza) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > I recently had a checkup and here are my readings:
> >
> > Total cholestrol is 188 mg/dL HDL : 38 mg/dL
>
> Optimal is more than 45 mg/dL
>
> > LDL: 135 mg/dL
>
> Optimal is less than 100 mg/dL
>
> > VLDL: 15 mg/dL. Blood pressure: Normal Trigycerides: 77 mg/dL Urine sugar: None
> >
> > I am 29, height is 5-7, weight is around 140 lbs but I have a bit more fat weight than optimum.
>
> You might be about 5 pounds heavier than ideal.
>
> > My diet for the past 3 years has mostly been fast food, terrible I know :( but I am moderately
> > active.
> >
> > One doctor seemed to think I was in perfect health while another said that my cholestrol
> > readings were not optimum. Would love to hear any opinions?
>
> You have them.
>
> > Thanks,
>
>
> You are welome, Kevin :)
>
> Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/
>
> --
> Who is the humblest person in the universe?
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
>
> What is all this about?
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57
 
A

Al. Lohse

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:27:28 -0800, "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]
> a> wrote:
>
> >Why not presents facts and encourage discussion in order to try to get things right?
>
> I did. I have. It's hopeless. You and Sharon and badant are not *really* interested in discussion.
> It's that simple. I've seen it happen many, many times: when someone, either a lay person like
> myself or a doctor, posts contradictory citations and information it's either ignored or
> discredited (or both! see below)
>
> The lastest is Mrs. Hope's questioning a doctors ability to properly diagnose his own patients.
> How would she know? The reason: He questioned her "statistics" with a valid arguement, which she
> completely ignored
>
> That's not my idea of a discussion.

Discrediting is certainly part of the process especially when it is accomplished without hint of
malice. Do you disbelieve the existence of "ghost writers?" Do you disbelieve that opinions can be
bought and sold?

"Ignored" may also be "misunderstood" or a failure to see the relevance, a failure to make a
connection. This medium is only somewhat similar to talking to a friend across a table, but there is
no needling or cajoling someone into answering on a specific point.

You, Listener, and I have seen it before, are obfuscating with volume. Why not show how one, and
only one, of your quotes contradicts the conclusion in:

http://www.ti.ubc.ca/PDF/48.pdf

Indeed, point out one error in letter 48.

Some of your quoted studies were weighed in this letter. Their process is far more sound than, for
instance, having a sponsor's representative as a part of a research team.

I am sure that doctors see a volumetric barrage of information of various degrees of validity on any
number of conditions which sell drugs. Volume does not cut it. Let us deal with a single exception
at a time.

Also, for weight of value to a summary or conclusion, let us determine whether or not the writer "is
not," "might be," or "is definitely," in conflict of interest.

UBC TI has nothing to gain or lose by its conclusion. Agreed?

If so, it carries a lot of weight. Agreed?

It is an elephant; Your quotes are mice. Agreed?

A.L.
 
L

listener

Guest
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:42:34 -0800, "Al. Lohse"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:27:28 -0800, "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]
>> a> wrote:
>>
>> >Why not presents facts and encourage discussion in order to try to get things right?
>>
>> I did. I have. It's hopeless. You and Sharon and badant are not *really* interested in
>> discussion. It's that simple. I've seen it happen many, many times: when someone, either a lay
>> person like myself or a doctor, posts contradictory citations and information it's either ignored
>> or discredited (or both! see below)
>>
>> The lastest is Mrs. Hope's questioning a doctors ability to properly diagnose his own patients.
>> How would she know? The reason: He questioned her "statistics" with a valid arguement, which she
>> completely ignored
>>
>> That's not my idea of a discussion.
>
>Discrediting is certainly part of the process especially when it is accomplished without hint of
>malice. Do you disbelieve the existence of "ghost writers?" Do you disbelieve that opinions can be
>bought and sold?
>
>"Ignored" may also be "misunderstood" or a failure to see the relevance, a failure to make a
>connection. This medium is only somewhat similar to talking to a friend across a table, but there
>is no needling or cajoling someone into answering on a specific point.
>
>You, Listener, and I have seen it before, are obfuscating with volume. Why not show how one, and
>only one, of your quotes contradicts the conclusion in:
>
>http://www.ti.ubc.ca/PDF/48.pdf
>
>Indeed, point out one error in letter 48.
>
>Some of your quoted studies were weighed in this letter. Their process is far more sound than, for
>instance, having a sponsor's representative as a part of a research team.
>
>I am sure that doctors see a volumetric barrage of information of various degrees of validity on
>any number of conditions which sell drugs. Volume does not cut it. Let us deal with a single
>exception at a time.
>
>Also, for weight of value to a summary or conclusion, let us determine whether or not the writer
>"is not," "might be," or "is definitely," in conflict of interest.
>
>UBC TI has nothing to gain or lose by its conclusion. Agreed?
>
>If so, it carries a lot of weight. Agreed?
>
>It is an elephant; Your quotes are mice. Agreed?
>
>A.L.
 
L

listener

Guest
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:42:34 -0800, "Al. Lohse"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:27:28 -0800, "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]
>> a> wrote:
>>
>> >Why not presents facts and encourage discussion in order to try to get things right?
>>
>> I did. I have. It's hopeless. You and Sharon and badant are not *really* interested in
>> discussion. It's that simple. I've seen it happen many, many times: when someone, either a lay
>> person like myself or a doctor, posts contradictory citations and information it's either ignored
>> or discredited (or both! see below)
>>
>> The lastest is Mrs. Hope's questioning a doctors ability to properly diagnose his own patients.
>> How would she know? The reason: He questioned her "statistics" with a valid arguement, which she
>> completely ignored
>>
>> That's not my idea of a discussion.
>
>Discrediting is certainly part of the process especially when it is accomplished without hint of
>malice. Do you disbelieve the existence of "ghost writers?" Do you disbelieve that opinions can be
>bought and sold?
>
>"Ignored" may also be "misunderstood" or a failure to see the relevance, a failure to make a
>connection. This medium is only somewhat similar to talking to a friend across a table, but there
>is no needling or cajoling someone into answering on a specific point.
>
>You, Listener, and I have seen it before, are obfuscating with volume. Why not show how one, and
>only one, of your quotes contradicts the conclusion in:
>
>http://www.ti.ubc.ca/PDF/48.pdf
>
>Indeed, point out one error in letter 48.
>
>Some of your quoted studies were weighed in this letter. Their process is far more sound than, for
>instance, having a sponsor's representative as a part of a research team.
>
>I am sure that doctors see a volumetric barrage of information of various degrees of validity on
>any number of conditions which sell drugs. Volume does not cut it. Let us deal with a single
>exception at a time.
>
>Also, for weight of value to a summary or conclusion, let us determine whether or not the writer
>"is not," "might be," or "is definitely," in conflict of interest.
>
>UBC TI has nothing to gain or lose by its conclusion. Agreed?
>
>If so, it carries a lot of weight. Agreed?
>
>It is an elephant; Your quotes are mice. Agreed?
>
>A.L.

Your reply (in essence "my citations are better than your citations") proves my point. I'm having
deja vu all over again.

Let me ask you a question:

Do statins provide an overall health benefit in secondary prevention?

(You can just answer yes or no).
 
L

listener

Guest
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:42:34 -0800, "Al. Lohse"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It is an elephant; Your quotes are mice. Agreed?
>
>A.L.

Your reply (in essence "my citations are better than your citations") proves my point. I'm having
deja vu all over again.

Let me ask you a question:

Do statins provide an overall health benefit in secondary prevention?

(You can just answer yes or no).
 
L

listener

Guest
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:42:34 -0800, "Al. Lohse"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>

>A.L.

Sorry for the triple posts...it must be from all the statins my newsreader takes. :)
 
Z

Zee

Guest
[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:42:34 -0800, "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >A.L.
>
>
> Sorry for the triple posts...it must be from all the statins my newsreader takes. :)

Aren't you just a riot?

Short term memory loss, transient global amnesia, aphasia (a•pha•sia (uh-fay'-zhuh) n. An impairment
of the ability to use or comprehend words, usually acquired as a result of a stroke or other brain
injury {as in for example, drug toxicity?}. Inability to remember having done something immediatly
after doing it, repeating questions many times without remembering asking or the answer, inability
to follow a conversation, inability to analyze two or three pages of text(as needed for work, or
even, for internet discussions) or how to do something you have always done (drive, do up buttons),
inability to remember what is at the beginning of a sentence when you are at the end of it,
pronouniation and spelling problems, inability to remember a 7 digit phone number long enough to
dial after repeated attempts, inability to remember it long enough to write it down, inability to
remember if you have eaten, or if the pan on the stove is from today yesterday or last week.
Inability to remember who people are in family photos (brother), complete inability to read or
recognize words like "and".

Tell me listener: what do you do for fun when you aren't kicking people who are down?

B'adant
 
L

listener

Guest
On 12 Feb 2004 19:41:36 -0800, [email protected] (Zee) wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:42:34 -0800, "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >A.L.
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the triple posts...it must be from all the statins my newsreader takes. :)
>

>
>Tell me listener: what do you do for fun when you aren't kicking people who are down?
>

So you're narrow-minded AND humorless.

You crusaders against the use of statins are simply an amazing bunch. You seem to revel in
presenting your point of view and, when questioned and challanged, simply ignore, unfairly
discredit, grossly distort, and/or mock others points of view or credentials.

How dare you imply that I have no compassion for those in distress. You don't know me (and frankly,
from your responses, I wouldn't want to know you).

I really do not want to describe in detail my personal health situation (you'd blame it all on
statins!) but suffice it to say it's not pleasant, I have to deal with it on a daily basis and, as a
matter of fact, will be going into the hospital next week for 5 days. That's what I "do for
fun".....you ....oh, never mind.

So, for five days. at least, you won't have this person calling you out. Enjoy it.

>
>B'adant
 
A

Al. Lohse

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:42:34 -0800, "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >It is an elephant; Your quotes are mice. Agreed?
> >
> >A.L.
>
> Your reply (in essence "my citations are better than your citations") proves my point. I'm having
> deja vu all over again.

My citation also gives mention of process, information about the players, and funding arrangements.
So, "in essence," you are correct.

>
> Let me ask you a question:
>
> Do statins provide an overall health benefit in secondary prevention?
>
> (You can just answer yes or no).

Yes, .... most probably, yes.

I cannot give an absolute opinion on that matter. UBC TI in letter #49

http://www.ti.ubc.ca/PDF/49.pdf

suggests there be a benefit. In order for them to reach that conclusion they had to take industry
funded research as fact. I do not. It needs to be audited and/or repeated. (Skeptics suggest any
benefit is independent of cholesterol profile alteration.) It is a pity ALLHAT-LLT, a large,
publicly funded trial, found no effect. A discovered effect there would have been definitive. A
discovered non-effect is ignored.

"Conclusions Pravastatin did not reduce either all-cause mortality or CHD significantly when
compared with usual care in older participants with well-controlled hypertension and moderately
elevated LDL-C. ...." JAMA. 2002;288:2998-3007 www.jama.com

When I see mankind in self-interest-mode, he is liable to distort reality. While he can be at his
best in self-interest-mode, he is also capable of being at his worst.

Personally, I had been asked to alter some data in a research project with trivial economical effect
on anyone. It is not difficult to do. The request may have been a test on me to see if I *would* do
it. I refused. Also, unlike that professor who asked me, I would have published negative results;
Results that did not measure up to the theory. There is information in negative results, sometimes
valuable information.

I know, however, altering data can be done, and in a field related to mechanical engineering where
economics and self interest were at play a graduate engineer had confided in me that he altered
data. (Public safety was not at risk.) It happens.

The publication of 4S in which the authors confided that the sponsor had an insider working with
them should sound an alarm to all. If s/he was not massaging data, why was he (or she) there?

To conclude, however, the benefits of statin treatment in secondary prevention are not great. (Like,
where is the elephant?) If they were great, there would be no need for discussion and clinical
trials would be positive and entirely supportive of one another.

If I had blocked coronary arteries, bypass, stents, or angioplasty, I would take statins if I could
tolerate them. They just might give one a slight survival edge. But, if I found myself sliding into
the abyss as Mr. Hope, Sharon's husband, I would forget about that slight edge and choose quality of
life over quantity of life. Everyone should be thankful to, certainly not critical of, Sharon for
telling us how things can go so terribly wrong!

My purpose in this matter is to minimize drug damage not only to myself, but also to others. Laying
out the facts and openly discussing them is a step in that direction. Four years ago I would have
thought that drugs damaging patients would be nearly impossible, excedingly rare; Today I find it to
be all too common, too irresponsible.

If it is agreed that http://www.ti.ubc.ca/PDF/48.pdf is an elephant, then the no fewer than three
*unchallenged* books written on the subject are whales. Sound bites like, "Dr. Alphonso Phritz says
the implications of the results of this study are enormous." simply do not (and should not) cut it.
Oft repetition does not a truth make.

Regards and thanks for your civility,
A.L.
 
D

Dr. Andrew B. C

Guest
[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 12 Feb 2004 19:41:36 -0800, [email protected] (Zee) wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:42:34 -0800, "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >A.L.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry for the triple posts...it must be from all the statins my newsreader takes. :)
> >
>
> >
> >Tell me listener: what do you do for fun when you aren't kicking people who are down?
> >
>
> So you're narrow-minded AND humorless.
>
> You crusaders against the use of statins are simply an amazing bunch. You seem to revel in
> presenting your point of view and, when questioned and challanged, simply ignore, unfairly
> discredit, grossly distort, and/or mock others points of view or credentials.
>
> How dare you imply that I have no compassion for those in distress. You don't know me (and
> frankly, from your responses, I wouldn't want to know you).
>
> I really do not want to describe in detail my personal health situation (you'd blame it all on
> statins!) but suffice it to say it's not pleasant, I have to deal with it on a daily basis and, as
> a matter of fact, will be going into the hospital next week for 5 days. That's what I "do for
> fun".....you ....oh, never mind.
>
> So, for five days. at least, you won't have this person calling you out. Enjoy it.
>

What is your health situation, listener?

You will be in my prayers that your health improves, in Christ's name.

(I generally find that being specific in ones prayers is pleasing to God who then tends to reward
the request more powerfully).

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2CA21267
 
K

Kevin Arouza

Guest
Thanks a lot Brad. That link is very helpful indeed :)

Kevin

[email protected] (Brad Sheppard) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Hello Kevin,
>
> good total chol, excellent weight - but HDL is low and trig could be lower. You may have the
> beginnings of metabolic syndrome - is the fat
...more...