The Great Cholesterol Scam and The Dangers of Statins
Exploring the Actual Causes and Treatments of Heart Disease
www.midwesterndoctor.com
-
Having trouble using the site?
Post any issues in the thread below or reach out directly to support!
Contact support
Board Doc's, what say you?
- Thread starter Gunfighter14e2
- Start date
www.midwesterndoctor.com
I'm not a doc, but I have some knowledge of meds, including statins. I have a bottle of generic Atorvastatin sitting on my shelf collecting dust, that was prescribed initially by my PCP. Although, to be fair, she did say it was "optional" if my standard cholesterol level didn't drop (which, thankfully, it has).
My general cholesterol level has been pretty good, over time. What I need to work on now is lowering my Tri-glycerides (just beyond the "reference range," right now), and raising my HDL (it's OK, but could be higher). I did get a CAC scan last year which fell into the "mild" range now, but we'll see again later this year.
My general cholesterol level has been pretty good, over time. What I need to work on now is lowering my Tri-glycerides (just beyond the "reference range," right now), and raising my HDL (it's OK, but could be higher). I did get a CAC scan last year which fell into the "mild" range now, but we'll see again later this year.
Morbidly abnormally high cholesterol is a real problem. Goal numbers today however, are driven by the pharmaceutical industry. There is no documented risk difference between 240 and 160 total cholesterol other than the pharmaceutical driven "studies" to sell more statins. The real killers with heart disease are high blood pressure and inflammation. One of the largest sources of total inflammation in the American body is sugar. Statins are hugely profitable and also just nasty drugs. They have wide and well known side effects that are downplayed and ignored for profit. There are some promising medications out there currently. Repatha for example is a monoclonal antibody that simply keeps the cholesterol scavenging receptors of the liver open. Took my total cholesterol from 295 to 110 with better than ideal TG ratios in just 2 months. Worked so well in fact that I modified my prescription to take it less. I wouldn't take anything unless my TG ratios were very bad and my total cholesterol at or over 300 and the last thing I would consider is a statin. Some people need lipid modification due to heredity of just lifestyle choices (though what you eat and size has not the effect on lipids that is often cited) but there are huge numbers of folks being treated that do not need it. When big profit is involved with any medication you better learn to do your own research and decision making. Your health care provider is not the independent thinking, unbrainwashed practioner that was the norm when I got out of school 32 years ago. They are all but very few tied to comglomerate med corporations and thus have little say in your care beyond the party line. Most every clinic around me is UNC, Duke or First Health owned and controlled for everything from statins to Covid vaccines and masks during the great stupidity. Corporate healthcare has ruined the landscape for practitioner and patient alike. Whenever possible stay away from them though that is impossible when you reach the need for more medical care than palliative and preventitve. Same goes for medicine and dentistry. Some good reading on cardiovasular maladies, statins and treatment is "The Great Cholesterol Myth" Dr Stephen Sintra, et. al.
Last edited:
My cholesterol is stabilized with my Crestor.
However, my BP meds have been adjusted. I take Losartan and Amlodipine. The Losartan dose got changed recently but it seems to be working. I was averaging 147/83 and now, yesterday, around noon, I measured 109/73 pulse 84 (just sat down from walking around.)
However, my BP meds have been adjusted. I take Losartan and Amlodipine. The Losartan dose got changed recently but it seems to be working. I was averaging 147/83 and now, yesterday, around noon, I measured 109/73 pulse 84 (just sat down from walking around.)
I have the same issues low HDL, the LDL isn't high either, my Tri-glycerides are high and have always been high for at least the last 30 years. I have pain issues with all statins, the latest being Livalo, which raises blood sugar and some muscle pain from time to time. I am 69, I have had a blockage 14 years ago with stents placed in one artery, cardiologist always asks if I exercise and I always reply "not intentionally". I am on regular bp meds and omega 3's, coQ10 etc. I am at the age where I feel like what's the use to jump through the hoops, take the meds, empty my bank accounts and just quit all meds and wait for the big one to hit. I think I should lower my doseage of fuckitall before I get too depressed.
If I’ve learned anything in the last three years it’s that everything is for sale. Your government is for sale, the “science” is for sale, and pretty much all health problems we have are self inflicted from our participation in some money making scheme.
For example, you sit on your butt, not exercising, watching tv, or sports, or porn, or Facebook to make money for somebody. These wouldn’t exist naturally and are not for entertainment, but for making money. While you’re doing this, you eat processed, high sugar, GMO inflammatory garbage, not because it’s food or does anything good for you, but because it’s profitable. Reese’s cups don’t exist in nature, Doritos don’t exist in nature, Mello Yello doesn’t exist in nature. These things all harm you and exist solely to extract money from you, and the marketing works. We voluntarily participate in these schemes.
So now you’re obese, with high cholesterol, a fatty liver and erectile dysfunction from all the work you did making somebody else rich. BUT WAIT THERE’s MORE!!! Now you can pay to be on a statin to lower that cholesterol, pay to inject yourself with Mounjaro so you’ll have induced gastroparesis and can’t eat as much of the trash we graze on, pay to take your cialis so you can function sexually. Mankind is a hamster in a money making wheel. If it wasn’t so evil, you’d have to marvel at the genius of the whole thing.
Philosophically, I believe it comes back to the notion of no free lunch. God is not mocked. He told Adam he would eat bread by the sweat of his face back in the garden. If the hebrews tried to gather manna for more than a days supply it rotted. Christ told the disciples to ask God for one day’s provision, not two. It’s not supposed to be easy, and it’s not going to be. When we’re deceived into thinking it can be, just like Adam and Eve, there are consequences.
I’m amazed at the turn I’ve taken in the last 10 years. Back then, I thought you couldn’t survive past 60 without a statin, and ACE inhibitor, and probably an SSRI. Antivaxxers were too dumb to have children. Now our family grinds our own flour, you’d risk getting shanked if you tried to vaccinate my kids, and I’m trying to figure out how to get the fluoride out of my tap water lol. This is certainly not medical advice. You have to do what you think is best, but I’ve gone from 100 to zero in my own personal life. It’s now nutrition, better life choices, and surgical intervention for things not amenable to the first two.
One note, I would strongly encourage everyone to listen to Sue Becker’s “Do Not Eat the Bread of Idleness” on YouTube. It was one of the big factors in changing my thinking on food.
For example, you sit on your butt, not exercising, watching tv, or sports, or porn, or Facebook to make money for somebody. These wouldn’t exist naturally and are not for entertainment, but for making money. While you’re doing this, you eat processed, high sugar, GMO inflammatory garbage, not because it’s food or does anything good for you, but because it’s profitable. Reese’s cups don’t exist in nature, Doritos don’t exist in nature, Mello Yello doesn’t exist in nature. These things all harm you and exist solely to extract money from you, and the marketing works. We voluntarily participate in these schemes.
So now you’re obese, with high cholesterol, a fatty liver and erectile dysfunction from all the work you did making somebody else rich. BUT WAIT THERE’s MORE!!! Now you can pay to be on a statin to lower that cholesterol, pay to inject yourself with Mounjaro so you’ll have induced gastroparesis and can’t eat as much of the trash we graze on, pay to take your cialis so you can function sexually. Mankind is a hamster in a money making wheel. If it wasn’t so evil, you’d have to marvel at the genius of the whole thing.
Philosophically, I believe it comes back to the notion of no free lunch. God is not mocked. He told Adam he would eat bread by the sweat of his face back in the garden. If the hebrews tried to gather manna for more than a days supply it rotted. Christ told the disciples to ask God for one day’s provision, not two. It’s not supposed to be easy, and it’s not going to be. When we’re deceived into thinking it can be, just like Adam and Eve, there are consequences.
I’m amazed at the turn I’ve taken in the last 10 years. Back then, I thought you couldn’t survive past 60 without a statin, and ACE inhibitor, and probably an SSRI. Antivaxxers were too dumb to have children. Now our family grinds our own flour, you’d risk getting shanked if you tried to vaccinate my kids, and I’m trying to figure out how to get the fluoride out of my tap water lol. This is certainly not medical advice. You have to do what you think is best, but I’ve gone from 100 to zero in my own personal life. It’s now nutrition, better life choices, and surgical intervention for things not amenable to the first two.
One note, I would strongly encourage everyone to listen to Sue Becker’s “Do Not Eat the Bread of Idleness” on YouTube. It was one of the big factors in changing my thinking on food.
I'm not so far away from you, age wise (will be 67 in Nov.). This whole cardio thing started for me a year ago during my Medicare "Annual Wellness Exam." My PCP finally decided to do a 12-lead and it came back with a RBBB (Right Bundle Branch Block). So, I got the Cardiologist referral. They did a whole bunch of tests (including the CAC scan, which I anted anyway), and also including a chemical version of the cardiolyte stress test, where they shoot you with this radioactive stuff that makes you go funky for a minute or two. That came back totally normal. And the CAC was in the "mild" range. In summary, the Cardiologist indicated that the RBBB was normal in about 30% of patients and nothing to worry about. He did put me on low dose Aspirin, once per day. He indicated that the best way to reverse the CAC results would be a "plant based diet." (Yeah, Right!).
So, do I. Plus Hydrochlorothiazide (diuretic). It does make you Pee a lot. Well, a lot more than "normal." I should say. That, and I'm also on "Farxiga" for Type II, plus the standard Metformin and Glipizide. I have noticed a bit of weight loss with the Farxiga, which is good. I just with they'd release a generic version as it costs about $450.00 for a 90 day supply.
I don’t even know where to begin. OK, I will begin with my credentials. I graduated medical school 26 years ago and 22 years ago I got a masters in public health with a concentration in epidemiology from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public health, considered the best in the world and I have done plenty of meta-research which means researching research and its methodology. I have actually written a lot on my blog about the cholesterol hypothesis some of it skeptical. My skepticism evaporated when the PCSK9 inhibitor studies came out.
Bottom line is this: if it is for what is called primary prevention, meaning that you don’t have heart disease already, but you have certain risk factors which are usually judged by what is called the Framingham score. If your score is high, it means you’re predicted to have something like let’s say a 10% risk of a major cardiac event Happening in the next 10 years. They would probably recommend a statin under those circumstances. However, it is true that your risk in the next 10 years goes down from the original predicted 10% to statistically something like 9%. Meaning that your absolute reduction in risk is indeed quite small and whether or not, you take a statin you still have almost a 10% risk of the bad shit happening. In a case like that, if it were me, and the statin didn’t cost much didn’t inconvenience me much and didn’t cause me severe muscle cramps, I would just take it and get on with Life because why not?
On the other hand, if you already have heart disease, they will give you a statin for what they call “secondary prevention“ which basically means preventing more events like heart attacks in the future. Under those circumstances, you stand to benefit a lot more from taking the statin. I can’t give you a number right now, but I think that you would be a damn fool not to take it
There’s always gonna be some dude like this Midwest Doctor who doesn’t offer his name who presents himself as the genius who cracked the great conspiracy in medicine. I have been very skeptical of just about everything I have ever learned in medicine, but most of it honestly represents the best state of knowledge at a given time, with some notable exceptions. Cholesterol is not an exception.
I’ll tell you this also: now that I’m over 50, I tell the young doctors that I train in the hospital where I work when I reflect back on the good old days, I say “I grew up in the days when men were men and MIs were transmural”. A transmural myocardial infarction is a big one that goes through the whole wall of the heart not just the lining. When I started back in the late 90s, we got lots of transmural myocardial infarction. People had huge heart attacks and they got super fucked up from them. Heart failure, and basically becoming a cardiac cripple.
You don’t really see that much anymore. Our armamentarium of medication’s to prevent heart disease, and our interventions to treat heart disease like stents and blood thinners, and so on has become so powerful as that, it has changed the nature of the disease. You can shrug off a lot of that as a big conspiracy, but you do so at your own risk.
If you guys want to read some stuff by a legitimate skeptical cardiologist who’s not just trying to stir up conspiracies, and who is respected as and among mainstream cardiologists, go find the blog of a country cardiologist in Kentucky named John Mandrola MD. He’s a guy that you can trust completely (I know him.)
Bottom line is this: if it is for what is called primary prevention, meaning that you don’t have heart disease already, but you have certain risk factors which are usually judged by what is called the Framingham score. If your score is high, it means you’re predicted to have something like let’s say a 10% risk of a major cardiac event Happening in the next 10 years. They would probably recommend a statin under those circumstances. However, it is true that your risk in the next 10 years goes down from the original predicted 10% to statistically something like 9%. Meaning that your absolute reduction in risk is indeed quite small and whether or not, you take a statin you still have almost a 10% risk of the bad shit happening. In a case like that, if it were me, and the statin didn’t cost much didn’t inconvenience me much and didn’t cause me severe muscle cramps, I would just take it and get on with Life because why not?
On the other hand, if you already have heart disease, they will give you a statin for what they call “secondary prevention“ which basically means preventing more events like heart attacks in the future. Under those circumstances, you stand to benefit a lot more from taking the statin. I can’t give you a number right now, but I think that you would be a damn fool not to take it
There’s always gonna be some dude like this Midwest Doctor who doesn’t offer his name who presents himself as the genius who cracked the great conspiracy in medicine. I have been very skeptical of just about everything I have ever learned in medicine, but most of it honestly represents the best state of knowledge at a given time, with some notable exceptions. Cholesterol is not an exception.
I’ll tell you this also: now that I’m over 50, I tell the young doctors that I train in the hospital where I work when I reflect back on the good old days, I say “I grew up in the days when men were men and MIs were transmural”. A transmural myocardial infarction is a big one that goes through the whole wall of the heart not just the lining. When I started back in the late 90s, we got lots of transmural myocardial infarction. People had huge heart attacks and they got super fucked up from them. Heart failure, and basically becoming a cardiac cripple.
You don’t really see that much anymore. Our armamentarium of medication’s to prevent heart disease, and our interventions to treat heart disease like stents and blood thinners, and so on has become so powerful as that, it has changed the nature of the disease. You can shrug off a lot of that as a big conspiracy, but you do so at your own risk.
If you guys want to read some stuff by a legitimate skeptical cardiologist who’s not just trying to stir up conspiracies, and who is respected as and among mainstream cardiologists, go find the blog of a country cardiologist in Kentucky named John Mandrola MD. He’s a guy that you can trust completely (I know him.)
Last edited:
I brought this up w/ my doctor when he stated my cholesterol was getting high. I stated that I thought the cholesterol issue was overstated and debunked and he looked at me like I had two heads. I didn't pursue it any farther with him as I knew I wasn't gonna get anywhere.
It is not debunked at all, but you could make an argument that it is overstated.
It is overstated because your doctor in general will tend to act as though take this medicine and you will live, and don’t take it, and you will die. As I noted above, the absolute reduction in the probability of an event that these drugs prevent is quite small.
It is very similar honestly to motorcycle helmets. Every doctor and public health person is going to tell you man you gotta wear your helmet or you’re gonna get all fucked up. And you’re one of these dudes that’s been rolling around on his Harley without a helmet for 30 years. You’re gonna tell him he’s full of shit.
Statistically, you should wear your helmet because if you have an accident, you’re probably gonna get all fucked up If you don’t wear one. On the other hand, the probability of a severe accident is thankfully quite low so you can roll the dice and get away with it for a long time maybe your whole life.
So even though on the population level, wearing a motorcycle helmet might prevent Thousands of brain injuries and deaths every year, on the individual level the risk of a crash is relatively small and the benefit of a helmet is smaller still
Later, I will go link a post on my blog about this exact issue. That is titled “what is good for the population might not be good for the patient”
That is the crux right there: doctors are trying to benefit the population as a whole, where that these tiny little benefits for each patient get magnified by all of the patients they are treating. Often on the individual level, the benefit is quite small.
It is overstated because your doctor in general will tend to act as though take this medicine and you will live, and don’t take it, and you will die. As I noted above, the absolute reduction in the probability of an event that these drugs prevent is quite small.
It is very similar honestly to motorcycle helmets. Every doctor and public health person is going to tell you man you gotta wear your helmet or you’re gonna get all fucked up. And you’re one of these dudes that’s been rolling around on his Harley without a helmet for 30 years. You’re gonna tell him he’s full of shit.
Statistically, you should wear your helmet because if you have an accident, you’re probably gonna get all fucked up If you don’t wear one. On the other hand, the probability of a severe accident is thankfully quite low so you can roll the dice and get away with it for a long time maybe your whole life.
So even though on the population level, wearing a motorcycle helmet might prevent Thousands of brain injuries and deaths every year, on the individual level the risk of a crash is relatively small and the benefit of a helmet is smaller still
Later, I will go link a post on my blog about this exact issue. That is titled “what is good for the population might not be good for the patient”
That is the crux right there: doctors are trying to benefit the population as a whole, where that these tiny little benefits for each patient get magnified by all of the patients they are treating. Often on the individual level, the benefit is quite small.
Last edited:
I have a dog in the fight, so be skeptical of my opinions. The company I work for makes a drug to lower LDL. It’s not in my bag but it was at launch.
First, almost all statins are generic. Tough to get rich off $4 a month, especially with how crowded the marketplace is.
Second, if you don’t want to take one, don’t.
P
First, almost all statins are generic. Tough to get rich off $4 a month, especially with how crowded the marketplace is.
Second, if you don’t want to take one, don’t.
P
I have watched on TV some motorcycle races. A guy lays down his Kaw 750 at 120 MPH and scoots himself away and takes a couple of rolls, a few layers off the leathers. And he was wearing a helmet.
And gets up and walks away.
I pee a lot, as well, though that was a symptom before all this. I have also learned to take probiotics and to drink one Gatorade a day. I still drink coffee and tea. But I want to keep up minerals, etc.
For me, a "Power Aide" Zero (Sucralose... no sugar). But it does help maintain electrolytes. I alternate between a double strength "Earl Gray" or a Double Espresso (CovFefe
dark roast whole bean which I grind) in the morning, both with raw Sucralose (NOT with Splenda - it's cut with Maltodextrin which makes it a sugar). Then it's just a matter of keeping as much sugar as I can out of my diet. It won't be a complete removal, but I try to get as close as I can.
I'm not a physician but I've played doctor many times with more than a few gals, and I can tell you the female body is an amazing thing and its reset feature is via an orgasm- clears their brain and everything else. But the reset needs to be done daily for best health.
I’m not from the Midwest and I don’t claim to be a genius, nor did I tout my bonafides of being trained at a venue “considered to be the best in the world” at anything. i also missed your name and medical license number in your post. I first thought you were referring to me and not the guy who wrote the article, but it’s about the same either way.
I didn’t encourage anyone to do anything other than educate themselves about the benefits of real whole grains. On the contrary, I believe I clearly relayed I’ve been somewhat humbled since my medical education (class of 2004).
To be perfectly clear, I am saying I don’t really know anything for sure, except the fact that I know I don’t know it all. A lot of the premises I previously built my world view on have been shattered by my own practical experience.
To rebut your suggestion about conspiracy theories, let me give a very specific personal example. Once upon a time, I very regularly used a product called hetastarch. It went under the brand name Voluven. It was a synthetic colloid that could be used for volume resuscitation in surgical or critically ill patients. I really liked it because it was cheap (an alternative to human albumin, very $$$), and I could give it quickly, unlike albumin which came in non pressurizable glass bottle containers at the time. FDA approved, on formulary at my institution, safe and effective.
One day, I went to get some hetastarch and lo and behold, it was pulled from the pharmacy and I learned it had been taken off the market. Why, you might ask? Because a guy named Joachim Boldt, a physician considered to be a leading expert on medicinal colloids (probably trained somewhere considered to be “the best in the world”, lol), had outright lied and falsified his data when the product was being trialed. Meta analysis of trials excluding his data showed an increase in mortality and acute kidney injury when using hetastarch. It was literally killing people, this guy KNEW IT AND DIDNT CARE!!!!! I know he was an anesthesiologist, but do you suppose he’s the only crook in all of medicine? That’s pretty gullible for a guy trained at the best place in the world for anything. How much money do you think was spent on Voluven vs how much gets spent on Crestor world wide?
There are other examples, like the decade we spent telling everybody they had to be on beta blockers because it decreased your risk of a heart attack. It was awesome until we figured out that was true, except they instead increased your overall risk of death, but from a stroke, not an MI. Trust the science. Lol somebody get me an epidemiologist.
Let me use your statement about why not just take it and get on with life from a different perspective. If you’re big pharma, and you can make a drug, and maybe it helps some people, maybe it hurts some people, but you can make billions of dollars by convincing everyone they need it, why not just MAKE it and get on with life? See how that works?
Men lie, institutions and governments mislead for money, power, and control. The Tuskegee experiments, MK ultra, operation sea spray, operation whitecoat, HIV/AZT studies in Zimbabwe, phizer’s Trovan trial in Nigeria, operation mockingbird, operation paper clip, Nayirah Al-Sabah, the gulf of Tonkin, on and on and on. I wish there was an avatar truth and virtue out there, but I believe the only one we had was crucified by the government some time ago. All I can do now is read a book to see what he said.
Let me close by being extra crystal clear. I am not trying to dissuade anyone from veering from the advice of their healthcare professional. I’m just speaking my heart. I wish I didn’t feel this way. Any man is free to do as he sees best. Take your statin, take your SSRI, get your booster. If fact, forget everything I said.
Last edited:
I went to my doctor. He said I have high cholesterol. I said that I wanted a second opinion.
He said, "Okay, you're ugly, too."
I can't find the study right now, but it was based on the theory that cholesterol has more to do with healing than anything.
They had tracked cholesterol from patients that had good baselines, and broke a bone or had major injuries. They ended up with massive spikes in cholesterol that tapered off as they healed.
So I'm going to just live and die without a pile of pills, as it's pretty obvious even modern medicine doesn't know very much.
They had tracked cholesterol from patients that had good baselines, and broke a bone or had major injuries. They ended up with massive spikes in cholesterol that tapered off as they healed.
So I'm going to just live and die without a pile of pills, as it's pretty obvious even modern medicine doesn't know very much.
I was talking about the Midwest doctor in the original blog post in the original post in this thread
Hetastarch is a pretty niche example kind of like Xigris. I don’t think that is a good comparison for something like statins, which have been studied extensively for going on 40 years. In fact, it is one of the best studied things in medicine with consistent results nearly across-the-board with the exception of Vuitton. But of course that’s not a statin
And John Hopkins is the number one school of Public health in the country. I am simply stating credentials and facts because too often a lot of this contrarian stuff you find on topics like this is promoted by quacks with questionable credentials or expertise.
Hetastarch is a pretty niche example kind of like Xigris. I don’t think that is a good comparison for something like statins, which have been studied extensively for going on 40 years. In fact, it is one of the best studied things in medicine with consistent results nearly across-the-board with the exception of Vuitton. But of course that’s not a statin
And John Hopkins is the number one school of Public health in the country. I am simply stating credentials and facts because too often a lot of this contrarian stuff you find on topics like this is promoted by quacks with questionable credentials or expertise.
And here is the blog link I promised about what I call the therapeutic paradox which I have been discussing throughout this thread
www.medicalevidenceblog.com
The Therapeutic Paradox: What's Right for the Population May Not Be Right for the Patient
A blog about biases in the conduct, interpretation, and application of evidence from clinical trials in medicine
The problem I have had with studies is also their strength. a group of people are tested. One gets the real thing, one gets a placebo.
The idea is to see what the medicine actually acomplishes.
But you will see that the medicine comes with warnings like may cause incessant flatulence or dryness of mouth. Things that may have been reported by patients and had nothing to do with the meds on trial. Just a guy who is gassy and thirsty all the time but they cannot report it like that.
The idea is to see what the medicine actually acomplishes.
But you will see that the medicine comes with warnings like may cause incessant flatulence or dryness of mouth. Things that may have been reported by patients and had nothing to do with the meds on trial. Just a guy who is gassy and thirsty all the time but they cannot report it like that.
That's why we randomize, and do post-hoc statistical tests of differences in, eg, flatulence rates between active treatment and placebo, to determine if the differences observed are greater than what would be expected by chance alone.
Here's another blog post I wrote about statins called
www.medicalevidenceblog.com
Billions and Billions of People on Statins? Damn the Torpedos and Full Speed Ahead
Billions and Billions of People on Statins? Damn the Torpedos and Full Speed Ahead
A blog about biases in the conduct, interpretation, and application of evidence from clinical trials in medicine
Statins are evil. Do you know what else was a big scam? Telling young thin women of European descent that they needed to take calcium in large doses without Vitamin K2 to prevent osteoporosis. Calcium builds up straight in the large arteries without the K2.
There is no logical or rational basis for saying "statins are evil" this betrays ignorance.
I don't even know what vitamin K2 is. But here's the USPSTF current recommendations on Vit D and Calcium (spoiler: not recommended)
I don't even know what vitamin K2 is. But here's the USPSTF current recommendations on Vit D and Calcium (spoiler: not recommended)
Vitamin K2 activates a protein called matrix GLA which removes calcium from soft tissues and it also activates osteocalcin, which holds calcium to bone. So, if you have a lot of calcium, you need vitamin K2 to direct it. Think of parking attendants at large events; they tell you where to put your car. K2 tells you where to put calcium. When it comes to calcium, where it ends up is what counts, not how much you have.
Skeletal formation and prevention of soft tissue calcification
Vitamin K-dependent γ-carboxylation is essential to several bone-related proteins, including osteocalcin, anticoagulation factor protein S, matrix γ-carboxylated glutamate (Gla) protein (MGP), Gla-rich protein (GRP), and periostin (originally called osteoblast-specific factor-2). Osteocalcin (also known as bone Gla protein) is synthesized by osteoblasts (bone-forming cells); the synthesis of osteocalcin is regulated by the active form of vitamin D, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol). The calcium-binding capacity of osteocalcin requires vitamin K-dependent γ-carboxylation of three glutamic acid residues. Although its function in bone mineralization is not fully understood, osteocalcin is required for the growth and maturation of calcium hydroxyapatite crystals (see Osteoporosis) (11).Protein S appears to play a role in the breakdown of bone mediated by osteoclasts. Individuals with inherited protein S deficiency suffer complications related to increased blood clotting, as well as osteonecrosis (12, 13). Protein S can bind and activate receptors of the TAM family that are involved in phagocytosis. Mutations in TAM receptors can result in visual impairment, defective spermatogenesis, autoimmune disorders, and platelet disorders (14).
MGP has been found in cartilage, bone, and soft tissue, including blood vessel walls, where it is synthesized and secreted by vascular smooth muscle cells. MGP is involved in the inhibition of calcification at various sites, including cartilage, vessel wall, skin elastic fibers, and the trabecular meshwork in the eye (see Vascular calcification) (15, 16). Moreover, several VKDPs, including MGP, have been associated with calcification sites in arteries, skin, kidneys, and eyes in certain inherited conditions, such as pseudoxanthoma elasticum and beta-thalassemia (17, 18).
The vitamin K-dependent proteins, GRP and periostin, are also synthesized in bone tissue, but their roles in bone metabolism are still unclear (19, 20). Expressed in normal human skin and vascular tissues, GRP has been colocalized with abnormal mineral deposits in the extracellular matrix in calcified arteries and calcified skin lesions (21). Expressed in most connective tissues, including skin and bone, periostin was initially associated with cell adhesion and migration. This VKDP also appears to promote angiogenesis (formation of new blood vessels) during cardiac valve degeneration and tumor growth (22, 23).
Current research suggests that reduced γ-glutamylcarboxylase activity and/or lower vitamin K bioavailability may impair the activity of VKDPs and contribute to bone mineralization defects and abnormal soft tissue calcification (see Disease Prevention) (24).
Both the folks I know who were put on statins... quit almost immediately. Said it fucked them up.
Avoid at all costs. Once they get you on them... it's a cash cow.
My plan is for stents, bypass, transplant... whatever. But no fucking Statins. For the last 20 years I've looked at that shit and said "No FUCKING Way!"
Sirhr
Avoid at all costs. Once they get you on them... it's a cash cow.
My plan is for stents, bypass, transplant... whatever. But no fucking Statins. For the last 20 years I've looked at that shit and said "No FUCKING Way!"
Sirhr
I'll be 58 tomorrow.
I've never been on any medications in my life.
I'm in better physical condition than when I left the Navy 30 years ago.
I'll be fine in two years time. And in ten.
Dude they’re $4 a month and millions of people are on them but your mind is obviously made up so carry on
Since you were at HUP you ought to know that you cannot take all that basic science mumbo jumbo and make strong clinical inferences from it.
Vitamin K2 - Wikipedia
Vitamin K2: The New K on the Block
Vitamin K2 is a relative newcomer, but early research is turning heads when it comes to health. Find out what it does and how to get more of it.
health.clevelandclinic.org
Maybe do some research smart guy. How are those boosters doing for you?
But you bring up Xigris and motorcycle helmets..there is tons of clinical relevancy for K2.
Last edited:
Dr Nadir Ali is a cardiologist and is as transparent as they come about his opposition to statins for absolutely everyone
Eat Mostly Fats
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WATCHING AND SUPPORTING US! Dr Nadir Ali is currently not offering Online Consultations. Email us at [email protected] Website: www.eatmostlyfat.com Facebook group: http://bit.ly/eatmostlyfatsfb\ Thank you! EMF Team **All videos on this channel are edited and...
www.youtube.com
Dr Nadir Ali is a cardiologist and is as transparent as they come about his opposition to statins for absolutely everyone
Eat Mostly Fats
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WATCHING AND SUPPORTING US! Dr Nadir Ali is currently not offering Online Consultations. Email us at [email protected] Website: www.eatmostlyfat.com Facebook group: http://bit.ly/eatmostlyfatsfb\ Thank you! EMF Team **All videos on this channel are edited and...
There is a role in severe (esp. familial) hypertriglyceridemia - that being said I am aware of AHA guidelines for even "moderate" elevated triglycerides.
For a long time they weren't $4, they were a cash cow that IMHO was overprescribed. I would recomend nattokinase for plaque reduction over statins. All medicine should be risk/benefit ratio. But big Pharma not profiting...
Am I lying, or mistaken? Please enlighten me as to my error. I must have missed something by not going to drug rep school.
There is no clinical relevancy for K2. I am at a university hospital right now and no physicians even know what it is among the ones I casually queried
I mentioned xigris specifically in relation to starch and motorcycle helmet specifically in relation to risk in the Framingham score and if you bother to click on the blog post, you will see where I actually compare the risk of a host of activities to try to point out the need for internal consistency in our risk proclivities
Please provide a link to the circulation paper that you claim you authored; I just want to make sure it was not a letter to the editor about nattokinase or some other fringe quackery treatment. Because that’s what nattokinase is and if you are truly a physician recommending these fringe treatments, you have exposed yourself as a shill of the vitamin/supplement/alternative medicine movement
There is a new medical study out.
Eat healthy foods, get exercise.
Get rest, don't smoke. Drink in moderation.
Do what you can to reduce stress.
Sometime between 70 and 100, you will likely die.
There are exceptions. A resident where my wife lives turned 105 this year. I don't know what meds she is on. But she does always wear a paper flower in her hair.
I get it though. There can be fads in theories and treatments. That some cholesterol is bad because it was a condition in people who had heart disease.
Then I read a study about a city in Italy. Kind of isolated and almost close sanguinity. Anyway, the people eat pasta all the time and have high cholesterol. And relatively no heart disease.
I smoked cigarettes from 05-25-1982 to 01-29-2018, about 38 years. I have had two annual screenings recently. No lung cancer, not even a node or a cell looking cross-eyed. This does not mean the studies on lung cancer and smoking are wrong. It just means I am a luck son of a gun. Lung cancer and cancer, in general, does not run in my family. However, bad teeth do. So, I had the rest of mine removed last year and now have dentures.
Luck of the irish, as I like to say.
Eat healthy foods, get exercise.
Get rest, don't smoke. Drink in moderation.
Do what you can to reduce stress.
Sometime between 70 and 100, you will likely die.
There are exceptions. A resident where my wife lives turned 105 this year. I don't know what meds she is on. But she does always wear a paper flower in her hair.
I get it though. There can be fads in theories and treatments. That some cholesterol is bad because it was a condition in people who had heart disease.
Then I read a study about a city in Italy. Kind of isolated and almost close sanguinity. Anyway, the people eat pasta all the time and have high cholesterol. And relatively no heart disease.
I smoked cigarettes from 05-25-1982 to 01-29-2018, about 38 years. I have had two annual screenings recently. No lung cancer, not even a node or a cell looking cross-eyed. This does not mean the studies on lung cancer and smoking are wrong. It just means I am a luck son of a gun. Lung cancer and cancer, in general, does not run in my family. However, bad teeth do. So, I had the rest of mine removed last year and now have dentures.
Luck of the irish, as I like to say.
The posts are over 10 years old. Do you have any more recents posts?Here's another blog post I wrote about statins called
Billions and Billions of People on Statins? Damn the Torpedos and Full Speed Ahead
Billions and Billions of People on Statins? Damn the Torpedos and Full Speed Ahead
A blog about biases in the conduct, interpretation, and application of evidence from clinical trials in medicine
Got to love the Hide. We can get into feces-flinging fiesta over any subject. Pick a subject, any subject, and we have two or three SME's.
Not complaining or doubting. Just amazed.
Meanwhile, I will pour another whiskey.
Not complaining or doubting. Just amazed.
Meanwhile, I will pour another whiskey.
My research specifically was not on statins nor did I ever say it was, it was on anticoagulation. I think it's just sad that nobody's keeping up with their CMEs regarding K2.
Regarding "fringe" nattokinase (there are no large clinical trials because there is no big Pharma $$$ to back the trials, next you will tell me there isn't a relationship between federal grant funding, the FDA, and big Pharma):
Effective management of atherosclerosis progress and hyperlipidemia with nattokinase: A clinical study with 1,062 participants
Hongjie Chen, 1 Jiepeng Chen, 2 Fuping Zhang, 3 Yuanhui Li, 4 Ronghua Wang, 2 Qiang Zheng, 2 Xu Zhang, 2 Jun Zeng, 2Feng Xu,
Abstract
Nattokinase (NK), known as a potent fibrinolytic and antithrombotic agent, has been shown to have antiatherosclerotic and lipid-lowering effects. However, data on human clinical studies are limited. In this clinical study involving 1,062 participants, our objective was to examine the efficacy of NK in atherosclerosis and hyperlipidemia and safety at the dose of 10,800 FU/day after 12 months of oral administration. Various factors, including lower doses that influence NK pharmacological actions, were also investigated. We found that NK at a dose of 10,800 FU/day effectively managed the progression of atherosclerosis and hyperlipidemia with a significant improvement in the lipid profile. A significant reduction in the thickness of the carotid artery intima-media and the size of the carotid plaque was observed. The improvement rates ranged from 66.5 to 95.4%. NK was found to be ineffective in lowering lipids and suppressing atherosclerosis progression at a dose of 3,600 FU/day. The lipid-lowering effect of NK was more prominent in subjects who smoked, drank alcohol, and subjects with higher BMI. Regular exercise further improved the effects of NK. Co-administration of vitamin K2 and aspirin with NK produced a synergetic effect. No noticeable adverse effects associated with the use of NK were recorded. In conclusion, our data demonstrate that atherosclerosis progression and hyperlipidemia can be effectively managed with NK at a dose of 10,800 FU/day. The lower dose of 3,600 FU per day is ineffective. The dose of 10,800 FU/day is safe and well tolerated. Some lifestyle factors and the coadministration of vitamin K2 and aspirin lead to improved outcomes in the use of NK. Our findings provide clinical evidence on the effective dose of NK in the management of cardiovascular disease and challenge the recommended dose of 2,000 FU per day.
Basic science work from Japan:
Natto consumption suppresses atherosclerotic plaque progression in LDL receptor-deficient mice transplanted with iRFP-expressing hematopoietic cells
- Takeshi Kawamata,
- Arata Wakimoto,
- Takanobu Nishikawa,
- Masaya Ikezawa,
- Michito Hamada,
- Yuri Inoue,
- Kaushalya Kulathunga,
- Filiani Natalia Salim,
- Maho Kanai,
- Teppei Nishino,
- Kyle Gentleman,
- Chang Liu,
- Bryan J. Mathis,
- Nozomu Obana,
- Shinji Fukuda,
- Satoru Takahashi,
- Yuki Taya,
- Satoshi Sakai &
- Yuji Hiramatsu
Abstract
Natto, known for its high vitamin K content, has been demonstrated to suppress atherosclerosis in large-scale clinical trials through a yet-unknown mechanism. In this study, we used a previously reported mouse model, transplanting the bone marrow of mice expressing infra-red fluorescent protein (iRFP) into LDLR-deficient mice, allowing unique and non-invasive observation of foam cells expressing iRFP in atherosclerotic lesions. Using 3 natto strains, we meticulously examined the effects of varying vitamin K levels on atherosclerosis in these mice. Notably, high vitamin K natto significantly reduced aortic staining and iRFP fluorescence, indicative of decreased atherosclerosis. Furthermore, mice administered natto showed changes in gut microbiota, including an increase in natto bacteria within the cecum, and a significant reduction in serum CCL2 expression. In experiments with LPS-stimulated macrophages, adding natto decreased CCL2 expression and increased anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 expression. This suggests that natto inhibits atherosclerosis through suppression of intestinal inflammation and reduced CCL2 expression in macrophages.
Last edited:
Those post are about risk appraisal and behavioral choice regarding to health risks. They’re not exactly going to change overtime.
OK guys if there’s one thing you can learn from this thread it is this: you can go to the Internet nowadays and support any fringe quackery you want because there will be some Google link on it.
In the case of the above, we are being led to a journal called frontiers and cardiovascular medicine and while it is not a completely fringe or predatory journal, it has a very low impact factor of 3.6. This is a measure in the medical literature of the importance and relevance of the journal in terms of what it publishes.
Then we have a study of this agent nattokomase, which asa full-time, double board-certified, actively practicing internal medicine physician in an academic Medical Center, I have never heard of it.
So I got curious and read the article and found that they are measuring what are called surrogate end points. That means they are looking at the effect of the agent on something they can measure, but is not an outcome of interest for the average patient.
The average patient wants to know if his health is going to be improved by the drug, well it is not really a drug. It is some kind of supplement, they don’t care about what some measure of their carotid artery shows.
Even if this Notakinase eventually does show efficacy for some important cardiovascular outcome, the fact that we are seeing a study with surrogate endpoint means that that evidence is probably a decade or more in the future if it comes at all, and if the agent is actually effective.
I am going to state frankly and out loud that the person who is posting this stuff about vitamin K two and not-a-kinase is exactly the kind of misleading quack that frustrates real doctors everywhere by misleading people about supplements and quack, longevity, treatments, and stuff like that
And we still don’t have a link to this one article that he allegedly published in circulation. Probably early in his career at the university of Pennsylvania he was expected to produce some morsel of research as a condition of graduation
In the case of the above, we are being led to a journal called frontiers and cardiovascular medicine and while it is not a completely fringe or predatory journal, it has a very low impact factor of 3.6. This is a measure in the medical literature of the importance and relevance of the journal in terms of what it publishes.
Then we have a study of this agent nattokomase, which asa full-time, double board-certified, actively practicing internal medicine physician in an academic Medical Center, I have never heard of it.
So I got curious and read the article and found that they are measuring what are called surrogate end points. That means they are looking at the effect of the agent on something they can measure, but is not an outcome of interest for the average patient.
The average patient wants to know if his health is going to be improved by the drug, well it is not really a drug. It is some kind of supplement, they don’t care about what some measure of their carotid artery shows.
Even if this Notakinase eventually does show efficacy for some important cardiovascular outcome, the fact that we are seeing a study with surrogate endpoint means that that evidence is probably a decade or more in the future if it comes at all, and if the agent is actually effective.
I am going to state frankly and out loud that the person who is posting this stuff about vitamin K two and not-a-kinase is exactly the kind of misleading quack that frustrates real doctors everywhere by misleading people about supplements and quack, longevity, treatments, and stuff like that
And we still don’t have a link to this one article that he allegedly published in circulation. Probably early in his career at the university of Pennsylvania he was expected to produce some morsel of research as a condition of graduation
