Thread: ABC, Catalyst and cholesterol.

Been there-Done that with 'statins. Tried a couple, but the end result was the same. - not a great deal of cholesterol improvement... but with severe pain, muscle aches that mimicked heart-pains..., and feeling generally depressed and crap. Physically as well as mentally foggy....

I found after coming off statins, - did'nt tell the GP 'cos I didn't have the knowledge or arguments - that I got a better result by eating sardines & canned tuna 5 or 6 times per week. Previously NONE.

He was mpressed by the results- still not "perfect" but much improved.... - and agreed that "diet" could indeed be a useful treatment in my case....

This is interesting. The medical propaganda we're subject to - Eat Healthy, LOW fat, replace dairy and butter with margarine and lite milk or soy, complex carbs, LOW Cholesterol foods, LOW salt, etc etc - is all centred around what we should NOT eat.
(That most of the above is totally wrong is a minor detail...)

Then, to treat the result of our life-style choices, they insist we DO eat their medications.
But NOT the foods that will have the same or better effect.

One has to wonder if it's because they don't know, don't want to know, or prefer we don't know.

An animal doctor knows more about nutrition than a human doctor. - From a Vet who successfully treated his own metabolic disorders by diet alone, after his GP wife was unable to help, beyond prescribing meds that did'nt work...

Bottom line (for me at least) Being actively involved and learning/questioning everything makes for a far better Dr/Patient relationship.
And better outcomes for you.

Having worked in a Newspaper, I can assure you that there is a lot of 'referencing' that goes on. A huge amount that gets through due to being 'expertly' re-written/re-phrased/differant order of presentation.

The less skillful examples are know to us a plagiarism.

I don't have huge problem with that, especially if it brings to light the original source(s).
- Thanks for that !

Originally Posted by superquag

.... ..... ....
Having worked in a Newspaper, I can assure you that there is a lot of 'referencing' that goes on. A huge amount that gets through due to being 'expertly' re-written/re-phrased/differant order of presentation.

The less skillful examples are know to us a plagiarism.

I don't have huge problem with that, especially if it brings to light the original source(s).
- Thanks for that !

The problem in this case is not the plagiarism. The lack of balance and the very dubious original sources are a bigger worry.

Originally Posted by vnx205

The Media Watch item was certainly scathing in its comments about the Catalyst program.

Anyone thinking of making a decision based on the very bad journalism in the Catalyst program should check out the Media Watch comments.

If you missed it, you can catch up on iview.
Media Watch (ABC TV)

I watch it and sent them my views about waht they have to say
The are complaining that Catalyst do not have a balanced inputs about the subject and at the same time they are in favor of blocking views like the expressed in the Catalyst program.
What a bunch of arrogant doctors are those that believe that people are not entitled to be informed about the drugs that Doctors are prescribing to them.
It is about time that doctors inform about the benefits and also side effects of the drugs so patients can choose according to their views.
I just wonder how many of the doctors of the members that have posted here the problems of these drugs have reported the side effects.
I bypass the doctors and reported the problems to TGA in their page on the web Reporting problems

Yesterday I whent with my wife to see her specialist who prescribed Lyrica 75 mg without mention one single side effect.
Have a look the side effects of this drug and let me know if you do not believe that we should have the right to choose between pain or the severe effects that can cause this "poison"
With statins is the same issue, we have the right to know.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

I watch it and sent them my views about waht they have to say
The are complaining that Catalyst do not have a balanced inputs about the subject and at the same time they are in favor of blocking views like the expressed in the Catalyst program.
What a bunch of arrogant doctors are those that believe that people are not entitled to be informed about the drugs that Doctors are prescribing to them.
It is about time that doctors inform about the benefits and also side effects of the drugs so patients can choose according to their views.
I just wonder how many of the doctors of the members that have posted here the problems of these drugs have reported the side effects.
I bypass the doctors and reported the problems to TGA in their page on the web Reporting problems

Yesterday I whent with my wife to see her specialist who prescribed Lyrica 75 mg without mention one single side effect.
Have a look the side effects of this drug and let me know if you do not believe that we should have the right to choose between pain or the severe effects that can cause this "poison"
With statins is the same issue, we have the right to know.

When I prescribed statins, I was told i needed a blood test 1 month after i start taking them because they can effect liver function, it took 8 months to find a tablet that never effected my liver, and I was at the stage where I was about to tell them to shove the tablets.

After taking them for about 14 months and no noticable drop in cholesterol, I spoke to a heart specialist and he recommended I come off them as he believed the side effects were worse than the benifit I was recieving. As I said, the withdrawals I went thru was terrible, I could ring the sweat out of my shirt from just normal everyday things like sitting down and eating dinner. I have lived in the tropics nearly all my life and never before then or since have I been like that. I hardly ever get headaches but I had 1 for 5 days, my wife was ready to take me for head scans believing I had a brain hemmorage or something as she knew I never suffered from headaches.

I never watched much of the show, but , in my case statins were not working and I am so glad that I no longer take them.

Cheers Ean

Originally Posted by Chucaro

I watch it and sent them my views about waht they have to say
They are complaining that Catalyst do not have a balanced inputs about the subject and at the same time they are in favor of blocking views like the expressed in the Catalyst program.
What a bunch of arrogant doctors are those that believe that people are not entitled to be informed about the drugs that Doctors are prescribing to them.
... .... ...
.

I don't believe that is a fair analysis of what the Media Watch program said.

They didn't advocate blocking the views of people like those that were interviewed at length. They just pointed out that those people were given a lot of time to present their views while the Heart Foundation representative and others were given very little time to explain their position.

They didn't suggest that people should not be informed about drugs they take. They just think people should be properly informed by people who know what they are talking about. That isn't arrogant; that is sensible.

As consequence of the little time he was given, the Heart Foundation rep came across as arrogant. That impression is inevitable if he is not given time to explain his position.

Media Watch was advocating balance, not blocking.

Like Media Watch, I am not arguing about the benefits or dangers of statins and cholesterol. I am just agreeing with Media Watch that the Catalyst programs were very poor journalism.

Don't you think it is a bit dodgy that the "experts" that Catalyst interviewed sell their own heart health pills in opposition to statins?

Maybe the following comment by one of Catalyst's experts might give an insight into how cautious we need to be in taking his comments at face value.

Dr Stephen Sinatra: You look at grounding for example or earthing, you know, putting your bare feet on the ground, you’ll soak up lots of electrons because the earth is negatively charged, our bodies are so full of free radicals, from, you know, anything from heavy metals to air pollution, to trans fats, I mean, our body is being inundated with a firestorm of free radicals so you got to put the fire out ...So I am so bullish on grounding as the most primitive, easiest, cheapest way of creating optimum health.

— YouTube, Dr Stephen Sinatra, 20th April, 2010

It has been very interesting reading the posts following my original post. Thank you all for (in most instances) thought provoking comments. There are obviously pros and cons for taking statins. I would suggest for every study lauding statins, there is one rubbishing them. In many instances I believe the experts pro or con have a vested interested in the use of statins.

Having said all that and looked at both sides for many years my decision is still to stop taking them (as of 1st November). There are, I believe, in my case other factors besides cholesterol that will determine the result of my ongoing heart problems. My biggest problem is Genes. All the males on my fathers side have succumbed to vascular diseases. At the tender young age. At 64 I am about the longest living male member of my family. It's pretty tough to beat those odds. Statins I believe again in my case have caused muscle, memory, weakness, confusion and other minor irrations. My doctors of course disagree, they put it down to old age. Well I hope to prove them wrong or die in the attempt (JOKE).

After 2 weeks I feel no change whatsoever but early days. For those waiting with baited breath I will keep you informed.

Tthanks for the words of encouragement.
Pete

Originally Posted by vnx205

.................................................. ...........

Don't you think it is a bit dodgy that the "experts" that Catalyst interviewed sell their own heart health pills in opposition to statins?

.................................................. ...........................................

If you look at it like unbalanced presentation I go along with you but the intention of the producer was not to have a debate but to have a view to start a debate between the public like we are doing now.
I believe that people are intelligent enough to pick what it is of value in the program and what it is not.
Regarding conflict of interest on some of the presenters we cannot help that look the article by "USA Today analysis of financial conflicts of interest shows the following, based on 159 FDA advisory committee meetings:

- 92% of the meetings had at least one member who had a financial conflict of interest.

- At 55% of advisory meetings, at least half, sometimes more among the FDA advisers, had conflicts of interest

- Financial conflicts of interest were most frequent at the 57 meetings when broader issues were discussed: 92% of members had conflicts

- At 102 meetings dealing with the fate of a given drug, 33% of the experts in attendance had a financial conflict

Historically the FDA revealed when these financial conflicts were present, but these conflicts have been kept secret since 1992.8 "

Now, the FDA and TGA have an cooperative agreement between them to among other things, quote:
The Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services (FDA) of the United States of America and the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Department of Health and Aged Care (TGA) of the Commonwealth of Australia in order to exchange information and/or documents on the observations and results of inspections of human pharmaceutical products and facilities for adherence to Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) and conditions of adulteration, misbranding, or adverse health consequences; End of Quote

Make you wonder why some doctors in executive places do not whant people to be informed.

I guess that as long there is money and greed we are never going to have a balanced information so we have to read and access all the information that we can and balance it ourselves.
There a thousands of people that are using Lipitor and the generic drugs for 3 years or more.
How many of them have been told by their doctors about the side effects reported by the FDA since 2011?
When the Hearth Foundation has reported about these FDA reports that are shared by TGA?
Last September FDA Warns on Statins, Lipitor & Diabetes, have the Doctors rand the people that they have prescribed this drug with the findings?
Of course not, they do not need to know.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

If you look at it like unbalanced presentation I go along with you but the intention of the producer was not to have a debate but to have a view to start a debate between the public like we are doing now.

...

I believe that people are intelligent enough to pick what it is of value in the program and what it is not.

...

I am not so sure... There are plenty of "true believers" out there who only see what they want... (just look at the vaccination thread).

The presenter seems to be one of those... [note that the producer decided the initial cut of the program was biased and forced her to include a heart surgeon]...