Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs Will Wreck Your Muscles

[Allen1]

Dr. Mercola newsletter has this topic today and boy does he dislike this stuff just as much as we do.

*http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/14/cholesterol-lowering-drugs-will-wreck-your-muscles.aspx?source=nl

[Biologist]

Yep. Thanks, Allen1.

Here's a three part series that's well worth reading too -- and emailing. Some super shock therapy for Pharma's statin-pushers/"doctors". The summaries of the various studies in Part III should leave at least a few of them speachless and stuttering -- but mainly apologizing profusely:

*http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/21/statin-drugs-part-four.aspx

This is an interesting quote from Part 1:

Dr. Beatrice Golomb of San Diego, California is currently conducting a series of studies on statin side effects. The industry insists that only 2-3 percent of patients get muscle aches and cramps but in one study, Golomb found that 98 percent of patients taking Lipitor and one-third of the patients taking Mevachor (a lower-dose statin) suffered from muscle problems.3"

However, this is a quote from her Statin Effects Study website:

"Most people tolerate these drugs very well. However, as is
true with all drugs, some people develop side effects."

*https://www.statineffects.com/info/adverse_effects.htm

Hmmmm....

Biologist

[Allen1]

Hi there Biologist,

I thought that some of the information was familiar but I thought it must have been from a Daily Mail on-line or similar publication. I didn't see this on Dr. Mercola's site but possibly on Weston A. Price or another site as in the :-

"By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD
Originally printed at Weston A. Price"

I think the study that makes me cringe has got to be this one especially when this university is meant to be held in high esteem here in the UK:-

Heart Protection Study (2002)

Carried out at Oxford University,37 this study received widespread press coverage; researchers claimed "massive benefits" from cholesterol-lowering,38 leading one commentator to predict that statin drugs were "the new aspirin."39 But as Dr. Ravnskov points out,40 the benefits were far from massive. Those who took simvastatin had an 87.1 percent survival rate after five years compared to an 85.4 percent survival rate for the controls and these results were independent of the amount of cholesterol lowering. The authors of the Heart Protection Study never published cumulative mortality data, even though they received many requests to do so and even though they received funding and carried out a study to look at cumulative data.

According to the authors, providing year-by-year mortality data would be an "inappropriate" way of publishing their study results.41


By the looks of it Dr. Golomb has had to play at being a diplomat to have her work read and published and as you quote:-
"Most people tolerate these drugs very well. However, as is
true with all drugs, some people develop side effects."

That seems to be the only way to keep happy those intellectuals who are either as bent as a £9 note or are just too stupid as to activate their brain before engaging their mouths. After my statin therapy I think I have become an intellectual just like them, the only difference is, that my thinking ability now keeps fading out and I loose track of what I am doing that must make me a genius if you look at how some of them have reacted and replied to statin debates

[Allen1]

Seriously though,

there are a lot of folk on this and other forums who have had their lives ruined either mentally, physically or both by this medication and yet the amount of information that has been explained and understood by these communities is extraordinary. It is just a shame that the people who keep saying how good this stuff is and how it can do no wrong and who influence how things are seen, do not open their eyes and stop the harm that they have let loose on so many unsuspecting victims.

All the best,

Allen.