Gyroscopic Investing

MangoMan wrote: MG, I thought you didn't trust government studies, especially those relating to healthcare...

What gave you the impression this study was a government study?

MangoMan wrote: Idk, maybe the fact that the link was to nih.gov?
Any time past that I have tried to substantiate statements with links to CDC, NIH, AMA, ADA, xxx.gov, etc., I have been hand-waived by numerous people here. It seems the only govt stats anyone believes are from the St. Louis Fed.

NIH just hosts PubMed which provides abstracts and links to published studies.  That's a little different than the propaganda coming directly from the three lettered agencies.  In this case, there was no third-party home page for the study so I linked to the abstract on PubMed.

But I'm really tickled if you had actually tried to substantiate statements with government propaganda!  Poor guy.

Ok, MG. Start eviscerating. 

[quote=cnn]A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee today recommended approval of a new type of experimental cholesterol-fighting drug that could be more potent and carry fewer side effects than statins, which are among the most prescribed drugs in the United States.

The agency will likely follow the advisory committee's advice when it decides whether to approve the drug, alirocumab (Praluent) from Sanofi SA and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., for patients later this summer.

On Wednesday, the advisory committee will discuss a second drug in the same class, evolocumab (Repatha) from Amgen Inc.[/quote]

dualstow wrote: Ok, MG. Start eviscerating. 

cnn wrote:A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee today recommended approval of a new type of experimental cholesterol-fighting drug that could be more potent and carry fewer side effects than statins, which are among the most prescribed drugs in the United States.

The agency will likely follow the advisory committee's advice when it decides whether to approve the drug, alirocumab (Praluent) from Sanofi SA and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., for patients later this summer.

On Wednesday, the advisory committee will discuss a second drug in the same class, evolocumab (Repatha) from Amgen Inc.

Since cholesterol is a necessary component of our nervous system, and has NOT been proven to cause any illness other than possibly in some rare cases of a genetic disorder, this is just another attempt to make money by brainwashing people into thinking they need to take a harmful drug.

I'd wait about 20 years to see if it's really safe.

dualstow wrote: Ok, MG. Start eviscerating. 

cnn wrote:A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee today recommended approval of a new type of experimental cholesterol-fighting drug that could be more potent and carry fewer side effects than statins, which are among the most prescribed drugs in the United States.

The agency will likely follow the advisory committee's advice when it decides whether to approve the drug, alirocumab (Praluent) from Sanofi SA and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., for patients later this summer.

On Wednesday, the advisory committee will discuss a second drug in the same class, evolocumab (Repatha) from Amgen Inc.

It causes a decrease in LDL by forcing the liver to remove even more LDL from the blood than statins.  Remember, the carrier protein (apolipoprotein before cholesterol is on it, then called LDL) transports more than just cholesterol; it transports all the non-water soluble vitamins, fats, hormones, etc..  The less LDL you have, less your organs are gonna get any of the critical stuff needed for life, nevermind optimal health.

On the plus side it looks like it might bypass depleting CoQ10 which is the #1 toxic problem with statins.

I don't know if I've repeated it enough on this topic, but the problem is OXIDIZED cholesterol NOT cholesterol.  Getting rid of the latter is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Reub wrote: I'd wait about 20 years to see if it's really safe.

Me, too. Or at least 5-10.

gizmo_rat wrote: madbean

I was prescribed statins about a year ago, all was fine and they were effective at what they were supposed to do. After about 6 months I started to feel deep muscular fatigue (like when you overdo the exercise then take a hot bath) which massively impacted my ability to exercise.
I didn't really connect how I was feeling with the known potential side effects of statins, long story short it took me a couple more months of experimentation to work out the statins were probably responsible.
On my doctors advice I fiddled about with the dosage but I was getting the fatigue effects even on an 8th of the dosage. I stopped taking them entirely about 3 months ago and I'd say have only just about recovered my stamina. Obviously the underlying issue probably remains but I'm trying other means until my next bloodtest in a couple of months. At that time difficult choices may have to be made, hopefully not involving getting fired by my doctor

TLDR: Side effects may take months to develop and might not be as others describe them.

Hope the statins continue to work for you.

I have been experiencing some unusual fatigue of late but don't know if Crestor is the cause or not. One problem I think they have in evaluating the side effects of statins is the nocebo effect. In some studies I've looked at the side effects reported were the same in the placebo group as they were in those taking the real thing. I guess the only way to tell would be to discontinue but then if I stop feeling fatigue is that a placebo effect?

I'm thinking of stopping after my latest prescription runs out which is in about a month, mainly because my doctor is tied to the idea of having me get a blood test and make an appointment every 3 months. Not gonna happen. I have avoided doctors like the plague for most of my life so there is no way I'm going to be making constant visits like this, especially when she makes 9:00 appointments and then shows up in the office at 10:00 with a waiting room full of people. I think she either hasn't read the latest FDA guidelines that say routine testing isn't necessary with statins any more or else she doesn't want to give up the steady revenue stream. Either way, I'm firing her.

And also for the record, I'm starting to think the lessening of my arthritis pain might have been due to a supplement I was taking called Celadrin because I stopped taking it and it seems to have returned to its prior level.

madbean2 wrote: I have been experiencing some unusual fatigue of late but don't know if Crestor is the cause or not. One problem I think they have in evaluating the side effects of statins is the nocebo effect. In some studies I've looked at the side effects reported were the same in the placebo group as they were in those taking the real thing. I guess the only way to tell would be to discontinue but then if I stop feeling fatigue is that a placebo effect?

I'm thinking of stopping after my latest prescription runs out which is in about a month, mainly because my doctor is tied to the idea of having me get a blood test and make an appointment every 3 months. Not gonna happen. I have avoided doctors like the plague for most of my life so there is no way I'm going to be making constant visits like this, especially when she makes 9:00 appointments and then shows up in the office at 10:00 with a waiting room full of people. I think she either hasn't read the latest FDA guidelines that say routine testing isn't necessary with statins any more or else she doesn't want to give up the steady revenue stream. Either way, I'm firing her.

And also for the record, I'm starting to think the lessening of my arthritis pain might have been due to a supplement I was taking called Celadrin because I stopped taking it and it seems to have returned to its prior level.

It sounds like its depleting your CoQ10 already since CoQ10 is required to produce ATP.   As far as placebos go, no one really uses true inert sugar-pill placebos anymore.  They actually like to use inert "placebos" that incur the same side effects as on the drug to make the drug itself look better.  Such a racket.

I tried Celadrin once but it actually make my joints very, very painful, the opposite of the intended effect!

madbean2 wrote: I guess the only way to tell would be to discontinue but then if I stop feeling fatigue is that a placebo effect?

Yes it's really difficult, I found fatigue is very bound with emotional state, teasing out which is causing which is hard. I stopped and started statins 4 times before deciding that on balance they were probably the cause. As much as anything it was the effects noticeable to others that made my mind up.
That kind of deep fatigue makes me ratty and brittle, which is a no go with children. There's only so many times you can snap at your kids before thinking "bollocks to this, I'm not running a scientific experiment here".

MachineGhost wrote: I tried Celadrin once but it actually make my joints very, very painful, the opposite of the intended effect!

Just ordered my second bottle because I had a few pills left and felt better after taking them for a couple of days.

Maybe with joint pain you go from one placebo effect to another but that's better than nothing, I guess.

There's a statin-iron connection.  Details here: http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... #msg122487

[quote=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/us/pa ... heart.html]“While the preliminary data on both drugs are encouraging, there is no substitute for large randomized clinical trials,” he said. And, he added, the very low LDL levels are so unprecedented, that “it would be cavalier to assume that nothing could possibly go wrong.”

“We’ve not ever done anything like this with drugs before,” Dr. Avorn said.[/quote]

Generally, I'm liking this approach better than statins.  From my understanding, instead of targeting the cholesterol production mechanism, it focuses on reducing LDL by degrading it.  So in theory, it should lower the LDL particle quantity and not cholesterol per se.  A huge red flag is this is a monoclonal antibody of which other derived drugs have caused cancer.

It also looks like berberine already does the job: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781434/

Of course, this is still an intervention that doesn't fix the underlying problem of endothelial dysfunction (which is what allows lipoprotein particles to go into the artery wall and be retained, initiating the inflammation cascade, eventual heart attack and death).  However, reducing oxidized LDL by any mechanism will certainly help maintain endothelial integrity. 

I'm pretty sure what is going to happen is people will use these new drugs as a crutch-all not to adopt a healthier lifestyle and diet.  Why bother when you can just get an injection and no harm done or so they think?