LCHF- Low Carb / High-Healthy Fat lifestyle.

Remove this Banner Ad

EXCLUSIVE: New calls for review over statin danger

THE British Medical Journal has called for a new and independent review of statins.

"It fears the drugs are linked to side-effects including muscle pain, cataracts, liver dysfunction, diabetes, fatigue and memory loss.

This month the Sunday Express revealed that statins have been linked to almost 20,000 reports of side-effects and 227 deaths.

Doctors are recommended to prescribe statins for anyone with a 10 per cent risk of heart disease within a decade.

Up to 12 million are routinely given the drug.

But critics say much of the trials data has never been made public and work is needed to ensure routine prescribing is not doing harm.

BMJ editor Fiona Godlee said yesterday: “The information on sideeffects has been seen only by the drug companies and the people who did the trials."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/593833/New-calls-review-statin-danger
 
Bazzar said:
Its advisable if you are taking statins to take a co-Q10 supplement.
Click to expand...

Beyond advisable , detremental if you don't, statins strips q10 which plays a role in energy etc...
There's a reason why Doctors don't advise taking q10 with statins because they it causes other ailments leading to more prescription drugs = more money for Doctor.
Anyone that believes a GP has your best interests in heart is dillousonal
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ablett said:
Beyond advisable , detremental if you don't, statins strips q10 which plays a role in energy etc...
There's a reason why Doctors don't advise taking q10 with statins because they it causes other ailments leading to more prescription drugs = more money for Doctor.
Anyone that believes a GP has your best interests in heart is dillousonal
Click to expand...
I must try and find the chart, but for a statin to work on lowering cholesterol the pathway it takes destroys the bodies natural production of co-Q10

Funny how the drug companies don't advertise that, but the other side of the business owned by the same stake holders, the supplement companies, do.
 
An outstanding disscussion on the DAA Visitor page (where the DAA limit their own comments to the basic one sentence standard reply) Some real heavyweights from the States as in Prof Richard Feinman, Margaret Cihocki and the brilliant Adel Hite have joined in. The DAA will not be enjoying this.

The topic "Can you post the DAA position on low carb diets?"

https://www.facebook.com/dietitiansassociation/posts/1001978199832582
 
haden1999 said:
Link between the popular cholesterol lowering drug Statins and diabetes

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150507145328.htm

ouch!
Click to expand...
Statins are a con...they should only ever be prescribed to people after they have had a myocardial infarction (there is evidence that they reduce death rate in this group) and even then they should always be accompanied by ubiquinol supplementation.

In others they are likely to confer more physiological disadvantage than advantage.
 
luapjb said:
Statins are a con...they should only ever be prescribed to people after they have had a myocardial infarction (there is evidence that they reduce death rate in this group) and even then they should always be accompanied by ubiquinol supplementation.

In others they are likely to confer more physiological disadvantage than advantage.
Click to expand...
Try explaining that to my Dad or Aunty. Any time I mention the Catalyst episode they explode into a diatribe about how dangerous that show was and thank god it was pulled from the ABC website, absolutely can not be reasoned with. Really drinking the kool-aid on this one :(
 
that feel when Dr Maryanne Demasi favourites and retweets you

omg1.jpg


 
PoopingHindi said:
some light reading for the 'Catalyst are killers' crowd

http://canadafreepress.com/article/74573
http://canadafreepress.com/article/74602
Click to expand...

Whoa! holy s**t :(

"The Medical Journal of Australia itself is no stranger to controversy. Last April, its editor, Professor Emeritus of Public Health Stephen Lederer, was summarily fired after expressing concerns about outsourcing production of the journal to publishing giant Elsevier. Most of the editorial staff resigned in protest. The ABC quoted Professor Lederer as saying “This company [Elsevier] has a history of unethical behavior in publishing.”

In 2009, Elsevier drew fire after a class-action suit against Merck in Australian courts revealed that the company had contracted with Elsevier for an undisclosed sum to produce the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the look of a peer-reviewed journal but whose contents in fact consisted solely of reprints or summaries of previously published articles, most of them favorable to Merck products. No mention was ever made of Merck’s sponsorship. In addition, several members of the publication’s “Honorary Board of Editors” complained that Elsevier never asked permission to use their names and had never given them articles to review. At least six other such bogus journals were produced by Elsevier. All have been discontinued. In a statement, Michael Hansen, CEO of Elsevier’s Health Sciences Division, said “This was an unacceptable practice and we regret it took place.”
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Medical journal editor sacked and editorial committee resigns
Date
May 4, 2015
    • ll but one member of the editorial advisory committee for Australia's top medical journal have resigned following the sacking of its eminent editor.
    • Stephen Leeder, an emeritus professor of public health at the University of Sydney and chair of the Western Sydney Local Health District Board, was sacked as editor of the prestigious Medical Journal of Australia after he raised concerns about a decision by the journal's publisher AMPCo to outsource the journal's production to Elsevier. AMPCo is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Australian Medical Association.

      Professor Leeder said he was "bereaved" by his departure from the MJA, but said that working with Elsevier was "beyond the reach of my ethical tolerance".

      "I feel deeply deeply bereaved," he said. "I loved the job, I loved the journal."



http://www.smh.com.au/national/medi...torial-committee-resigns-20150503-1myr8q.html
 
PoopingHindi said:


i'll have to watch it on catch up TV later cause its on at the same time as the Great Australian Spelling Bee.
Click to expand...


Just finished watching this. It was ok, but not on the the level of Cereal Killers or That Sugar Film in terms of what I would recommend to the uninitiated.

(I still texted all my family in advance anyway, but they're used to my war on sugar already. About two Xmases ago I first introduced the concept of fat=good/sugar=bad and when they mocked me for it I told them I was confident the rest of the world would catch up eventually, so I take great delight in pointing out to them the increasing occurrences of the mainstream media addressing the topic. Though seeing me drop 20kgs or so since then while eating a high fat diet has already swayed a few of them).

But back to the show - at first I thought it was a nice touch getting an in-shape sugar addict hottie on to illustrate that the damage can be more than skin deep, but then they didn't really go anywhere with it. The dental surgery scenes were pretty powerful - two year olds with rotten teeth getting ripped out is pretty messed up. Some of the interviews with the diabetics felt a little too convenient though - getting people who obviously have little clue about their health to simply answer 'sugar caused it' sounded a little scripted to me.

I see the war on sugar continues on Sunday with 'The Sugar Conspiracy' though. Good stuff.
 
Last edited:
estibador said:
Just finished watching this. It was ok, but not on the the level of Cereal Killers or That Sugar Film in terms of what I would recommend to the uninitiated.

(I still texted all my family in advance anyway, but they're used to my war on sugar already. About two Xmases ago I first introduced the concept of fat=good/sugar=bad and when they mocked me for it I told them I was confident the rest of the world would catch up eventually, so I take great delight in pointing out to them the increasing occurrences of the mainstream media addressing the topic. Though seeing me drop 20kgs or so since then while eating a high fat diet has already swayed a few of them).

But back to the show - at first I thought it was a nice touch getting an in-shape sugar addict hottie on to illustrate that the damage can be more than skin deep, but then they didn't really go anywhere with it. The dental surgery scenes were pretty powerful - two year olds with rotten teeth getting ripped out is pretty messed up. Some of the interviews with the diabetics felt a little too convenient though - getting people who obviously have little clue about their health to simply answer 'sugar caused it' sounded a little scripted to me.

I see the war on sugar continues on Sunday with 'The Sugar Conspiracy' though. Good stuff.
Click to expand...
the show was fairly basic and didnt really delve too deeply into anything but i suppose for the uninitiated its not a bad place to start.
the dental surgery bit was pretty disturbing...i was half watching and half looking away at the same time.
and yeah, i have no idea what that woman was doing on the show apart from providing a bit of eye-candy (see what i did there?)


it seems like we've got Jamie Oliver on board now too. 'Jamies Sugar Rush' airs this Thursday on channel 4 in the UK and should be available from your usual disreputable download sites...or hopefully on youtube.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...iver-fizzy-drinks-sugar-rush-campaign-welcome
 
PoopingHindi said:
it seems like we've got Jamie Oliver on board now too. 'Jamies Sugar Rush' airs this Thursday on channel 4 in the UK and should be available from your usual disreputable download sites...or hopefully on youtube.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...iver-fizzy-drinks-sugar-rush-campaign-welcome
Click to expand...

Its funny reading his desert recipes on his website that are "loaded" with sugar, then he posts this "on the same site"

http://www.jamieoliver.com/sugar-rush/#Yfx5HdVCyzvXlzfC.97
 
I must admit that his recipes are good but he knows nothing about health. Why does Oliver bemoan unqualified people giving out nutritional advice when he does exactly that?

Bit hypocritical Jamie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top