Egg Test

A forum to discuss diet and dietary supplements.

Egg Test

Postby Biologist » Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:30 pm

I recently saw my prescribing doctor for Zocor in order to draw blood for the statin damage study (i.e., School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences State University of NY at Buffalo, conducted by Georgirene D. Vladutiu, PhD). I had not seen him in eighteen months. (For new people here, I quit Zocor after a serious reaction in November of 2006 and have been recovering to date.)

He asked about my current cholesterol levels. OK, sure; for fun and kicks, let's see what they may be. Also the study wanted to know current cholesterol levels too which I will mail to them soon. Two birds with one stone. I like a bargain, so off we go.

However, I waited five weeks before actually having the blood drawn to give me enough time...

Time to eat some eggs. I went to Sam's Club on June 1 and bought 180 eggs in a box for $12 (less than seven cents per egg, by the way). I consumed an average of six per day. Raw. I did not want to risk denaturing any of the proteins and/or cholesterol molecules. (I also dipped each egg into rubbing alcohol as a precaution against salmonella at the time I bought them -- low odds of any problems, but just to be sure. (BTW, my theory is that such contamination, while rare, is likely due to inoculation from the outside of the shell upon cracking the shell rather than the microorganism being inside the egg.) I let my doctor know by email of my experiment and my belief in the documented science of human biochemistry and physiology, so he knew what I was doing.

I was prime for testing by the July 1 -- all of my eggs were gone. But I miscalculated. The sample is to go out Next Day Fedex. That would put the samples in Buffalo on Friday the third as I could not get blood drawn until July 2. Businesses (and universities) were to be closed at that time for the early July 4th holiday.

Not a problem. I was still hungry. I bought more eggs. Without missing a day, I upped my consumption to 10 per day and blood was drawn on Tuesday of this week. Results are due in his office as early as today (but let's not count on it). I will let you know the results when I get them.

By the way, I lost over ten pounds over this time period. I was never hungry, or when I was, I ate. Eggs. I got took plenty of vitamins and ate carbohydrates in the form of fruits and vegetables and got plenty of fat by consuming coconut oil, a saturated fat which I mixed in with my cupful of beaten up eggs along with some D-Ribose and a scoop of table sugar. I also took L-Carnitine, CoQ10 and Magnesium (i.e., Dr. Sinatra's recommendation for heart health and "repair"). I also walked an average of 3.5 miles per day -- and felt pretty decent the whole time.

So we will see.

Also, BTW. I have become a bit of a "conspiratorial type." A paranoid, if you will. (I was normal as a child :) ). To make sure things stayed on the up and up regarding lab testing I took a drugstore home cholesterol test too. Hey, some of these national diagnoistic testing labs are tricky, you know, for example:


But the home test did not work. For these, you do not have to fast, but you do have to lay off the Vitamin C for 24 hours (and acetaminophen). With my level of VC consumption, I would likely need a "VC fast" of many more days. I talked to the lab and they agreed. Oh well...

ZRT Labs, as it turns out, does not test cholesterol. Good for them. I did not want to bother my other doctor for doing the simultaneous testing. So, hopefully, we will get good results from the first lab, unverified as they may be...

Hey, I tried.

I will post results, good or bad, when they get in.

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby cjbrooksjc » Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:18 pm

B: Fascinating experiment. I'll be waiting for the result. As the liver manages our cholesterol levels and generates what it needs not acquired from dietary sources, I will be astounded if your serum cholesterol levels skyrocket (but I have been astounded before :|

BTW: I thought Vit C was not retained in human tissue and so short lived in the body that it was better to take two 500 Mg tabs twice a day rather than one single gram dose once a day (the excess is expelled in the urine). How come YOUR body is accumulating it? Is there something you aren't telling us... something alien? Or am I just barking up the wrong C. :)

Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:28 am
Location: Texas

Postby David Staup » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:27 pm


as a fellow user of the scientific method I have two questions

did you notice any changes in your abilities or symptoms during the experiment and

were you testing an hypothasis??

I look forward to seeing your blood test results and thank you for sharing

David Staup
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: granbury, texas

Postby Biologist » Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:38 pm

Hi, Brooks.

The home test says that if you take as much as 500 mg of vitamin C per day, you need to wait 24 hours before taking the test. The half-life of vitamin C is said to be about 30 minutes IN HUMANS. After 24 hours, the acceptable fraction of VC remaining for the test from successive half-lives would be considerably less with 500 mg per day than for my 5,000 to 6,000 mg per day habit. Yep, I take 1,000 mg every two or three hours mainly because it is so easy to do. I keep them in my pocket sometimes. I may not always do that, but for now, why not. They say if you quit taking high dosages you should taper off. The body gets use to that high amount and can experience a loss when you suddenly quit or cut way back. Of course that's for humans. Martians and other aliens, such as myself, can generally quit on a dime. :)


Hi, David.

Yes, my ALS-like symptoms in my arms, wrists and hands got worse over that period (while my energy level was fine). I do not know what to make of that right now.

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby Biologist » Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:43 pm

I could not be more pleased with the results. Most of us learn and advance in knowledge even when our tested hypothesis turns out to be wrong; however, there is an undeniable gratification of being proven right -- which is something the corrupt politician Ancel Keys and friends never attained. So I am pleased. The hypothesis was that the work and reporting of real scientists is more reliable than that of politician scientists. I suspected it was a pretty safe bet.

My results follow in this post, however, let me first help educate those who may read this post now or in the future who may be confused about healthy cholesterol levels. The Pharmomedical Money Machine (based on an erroneous hypothesis by Ancel Keys later "proven" by fraud) says that saturated fat raises cholesterol levels. Science says a more correct interpretation of reality is that an evolutionarily unnatural preponderance of polyunsaturated fat consumption (as continues to be recommended by the medical authorities) LOWERS cholesterol. They do so by weakening the cell membranes of the approximate one hundred trillion cells in our bodies where additional cholesterol must be constantly recruited from the blood to strengthen these cellular structures due to the the incorporation of these inferior fats into the membranes. This lowers SERUM cholesterol levels (which is what we test). Poor idea, even if the idea of lowering serum cholesterol was a good idea, which the science says is not.

My additional saturated fat intake (i.e., coconut oil) over the last few weeks may have helped improve and normalize my cholesterol levels. My total cholesterol was found to be 228 mg/dL. It will be recorded as being "abnormal" since it is not less than 200 mg/dL. My levels tested at a very healthy and natural level; the lower target levels required by the National Cholesterol Education Program (a financially corrupted group) is what is abnormal. The NCEP is wrong according to the scientific evidence; they are only right according to pharmaceutical company and processed food industry economics.


After an average consumption of over 1,300 mg of cholesterol per day for five weeks, where the American Medical Association (and other similar groups) recommend no more than 300 mg of ingested cholesterol per day, my cholesterol tested normal and healthy at 228 mg/dL. (A typical large egg contains approximately 212 mg of cholesterol; I consumed 230 in 35 days.)

More importantly, my Total Cholesterol to HDL Ratio was 4.5 which is considered (by the reference ranges included by the lab) to be Below Average Risk for heart disease. This is today's state-of-the-art measurement for risk, not Total Cholesterol Levels or LDL Cholesterol Levels.

Total Cholesterol: 228 mg/dL
VLDL Cholesterol: 14 mg/dL
LDL Cholesterol: 163 mg/dL
HDL Cholesterol: 51 mg/dL
Total Cholesterol/HDL Ratio: 4.5
Triglyceride: 72 mg/dL

As Brooks mentioned, the liver monitors serum cholesterol and cuts off dietary absorption when you have had enough; if you do not eat enough, it makes the rest. The results of my experiment indicate that another Major Pillar of the worldwide Cholesterol Farce, is not merely incorrect, but an easily provable lie. They can try it at home. It, and others, are dangerous lies.

The science also indicates that if you were able to lower your internal production of cholesterol to zero mg/dL with enough statins, your cholesterol levels would likely still be fine (i.e., healthy) if you consumed enough cholesterol in your diet. Note however, that you might also become critically ill or dead since your vital CoQ10 levels would also plummet to nothing due to the high dosage of statins. I partly attribute my injuries to the my doctor's (required) ignorance of cholesterol biochemistry, physiology and metabolism. While my cholesterol was being lowered by statins, the deficet was being covered by my diet which prompted a much higher dosage of the statin to bring it down (not that it ever should have been brought down in the first place, as previously discussed). The high dose of statins caused my injuries by cutting off production of other products of the Mevalonate Pathway. I should have been told to make sure I was not ingesting any cholesterol in my diet, and then my cholesterol levels would have dropped with a less dangerous dose of statins. "I was overdosing at 40 mg/day of Zocor and making twice the profits for Pharma." At the time, I did not know any better, and my doctor apparently did not know what he was doing either -- by design. Doctors are not supposed to know what they are doing. It would hurt pharmaceutical sales.

My doctor also ordered a Vitamin D test. My level was 72 ng/mL. A healthy level. (Reference range at 30 - 89 ng/mL) I lowered my consumption of vitamin D after my last test with my other doctor where I measured 90 ng/mL a few months ao with a slightly higher reference range for that lab. (Life guards often measure over 100 ng/mL -- they seem to do OK.)

For some reason he also ordered a Folate test. I measured ">20.0 n/mL" where greater than 5.4 ng/mL is considered normal. Due to Dr. McCully's landmark work on homocysteine, I keep my B vitamins up there.

I requested a Ferritin test (i.e., serium iron level) which we added since I can no longer give blood to the Red Cross due to the finasteride that I take for hair loss. (It causes birth defects to the fetus when perfused in pregnant women). I measured at 224 ng/mL on a referrence range of 22 - 322 ng/mL. Doctors are believed to have bled our first president, George Washington, to death on his death bed. President Garfield is believed, by some, to have been "assasinated by doctor" secondary to a gunshot wound (i.e., excessive theraputic "blood letting" by a sucession of attendant physicians).

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby Allen1 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:33 am

Hi there Biologist,

that was an interesting and informative post. My concerns are about the blood letting that you may or may not administer to yourself. Please refrain from being tempted to do that, if someone else was to follow suite and it all went wrong, it could be fatal. If you do wish to proceed along those lines, then please get a doctor to assist you. I personally think it is a bad idea and I understand the real need for answers to our problems but I think that this idea is to say the least very risky.

You may be capable of doing the procedure but all it takes is someone who is not that competent to try it for themselves and really do some harm or worse. It just isn't worth the risk and hopefully this message and the one leading up to it will be removed/edited.

Remember that a lot of us lot are desperate for relief and sometimes we will throw caution to the wind when things get really bad, it simply isn't a good idea to give a desperate person an idea like this one.

I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from them but we all must limit ourselves in how far we will try things out to stop anything from causing even more harm.

Please do not proceed with that procedure unless it is performed by a doctor in sterile conditions etc.

All the best,
Allen. (Take care Mate)
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:55 am
Location: England

Postby Biologist » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:00 am

Allen, if one were subject to fainting at the sight of blood, doing so with a hypodermic needle in one's arm (and an attached short section of surgical tubing leading to a small plastic collection bag) would not be a good time to go fainting ! I'll sure agree with that. I agree with you that it should not be tried at home by most people.

However, when I do blood sampling for ZRT where you are to prick your finger for the "blood spot" test, I now use a new insulin syringe (right from its sealed package) to partially fill the "chamber" after inserting it into a visible vein ( which takes some skill and nerve). I then use the plunger to make perfect drops/blots on the absorption material to be mailed off. I did talk to the lab to see if this method was OK. The question being since the blood would be venous as compared to capillary-rich blood from a finger tip squeezing, would there be any difference to the lab. They had to check on it and came back to the phone and said it would be fine. (The capillary blood could conceivably be slightly chemically different from the veinous blood, was my concern.) One major problem with those tests is the inability to make good blood spot samples on the media by pricking your finger. I have the insulin syringes for my injections of HCG and Sermorelin. I need the sermorelin as statins screwed up my production of human growth hormone by damaging either my hypothalamus or my pituitary gland in my brain. I haven't checked yet, does the product insert sheet with statin prescriptions include the warning of "brain damage"? Muldoon says the frequency is 100% of tested patients for one such type of brain damage when sufficiently sensitive testing is done, while that form often mitigates on stopping the statins. Somehow I missed reading or hearing about all that stuff when I was taking statins :?

BTW, I have determined a decent way to suspect you are not getting enough Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is whether or not you are constantly waking up at night and need to get something to eat to get back to sleep. HGH, secreted at night, tells the cells to release fat to feed your body while you are sleeping. No HGH, no good sleep, and you can expect to gain weight. Stored fat at is not being released at the appropriate time and so it builds up. HGH counters insulin. Insulin packs away the fat AND keeps it there. It will not allow the release of fat supplies unless HGH is present such as a night when we are sleeping.

Having ongoing sleep problems? Does your doctor check your HGH (through the proxy of IGF-1, its major metabolite)? No, they automatically give you a prescription sleeping pill which all have side effects -- some of them pretty major. Treat the symptom, not the cause. That is the basis of Corporate Medicine.

Also, some may have noticed my LDL was "high." I say it is just right. LDL is an excellent antioxidant and does not cause heart problems according to the best science. I am coming to view higher LDL levels as an "adaptive advantage." I have a good ready supply of fresh cholesterol ready any time there is growth or repair required by my cells. Lp(a), the dense form of carrier (currently lumped in with LDL for testing purposes) does cause problems! CoQ10 supplementation selectively keeps that particular species way down. My LDL levels, for this reason, please me.

I will try to explain this to my doctor when we discuss results this week, however, I suspect he already gets it.

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby cjbrooksjc » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:20 am

Biologist: Great test run and result. Thanks for keeping us in the loop. And the HGH hypothesis is interesting too! Do you still take DHEA for hormone imbalance?

Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:28 am
Location: Texas

Postby Biologist » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:32 pm

Brooks, I normally take 50 mg per day. I doubt if it has much control over HGH, though. When I took 25 mg for months and then had DHEA tested, I was still a bit low. So now I take the higher amount.

Yep, I was pleased with the experiment.

Just picture it -- right now, as we speak, semi-tractor trailers packed full of fresh eggs are backing into the parking lots of national health organizations all over the country (e.g., the NIH, AMA, ADA, ETC. ETC.) with courageous (but some drafted and recruited) employees having already updated their wills this morning and now bravely marching to their respective cafeterias to get to work... :)

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby Biologist » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:46 am

In the parlance, Houston We Have A Problem.

My concern about the reliability of my recent lipid testing results appears to have been justified. According to an article I read yesterday by Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades, my LDL level probably should have been recorded at about 121 mg/dL rather than 163 mg/dL. Identifying such an error is important because it would prevent a lipid profile such as this one from certifying someone as being a candidate for statination. Here's an excerpt of their article:

"A paper published a few years ago in a pathology
journal corroborating what we found. This paper is
basically a case presentation of a 63-year-old man
with a total cholesterol level of 263 (all results in
mg/dl), an HDL of 85, a triglyceride level of 42, and
an LDL level of 170. The LDL level was, of course,
calculated using the Friedewald equation.

For some unexplained reason the authors of this
paper decided to repeat the lab results and got the
same readings. They then wondered if his very low
triglyceride readings might be having an effect, so
they measured his LDL levels directly and found that
instead of the 170 predicted by the Freidewald
equation, his actual LDL levels were only 126."

When I apply the indicated “error correction rateâ€Â
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby Biologist » Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:02 pm


In the first post in this thread, I wrote that the statin damage study had requested current cholesterol levels. On rechecking just now, that's incorrect. Here's the actual question they asked regarding testing and the answer I used to "fill in the blank":

Question: "Have you ever had a blood test to measure a substance called creatine kinase or "CK"? What level was found?"

Response: "I do not know at present, I will check and send findings to you along with current lipid level tests to be done next week."

I remembered my written answer better than their question when writing the post. In fact, I failed to specifically request the CK test recently maybe thinking at the time it would automatically be done. I have copies of all my testing results over the years and am sure that test has been done in the past. It will take some work to find those documents so I probably will not bother right away unless positive findings are mailed to me. (If they find nothing in the genetic DNA testing, you will not hear from them.) For what its worth, I did send in my lipid results. They (the study) probably have more interest in CK levels at the time I was on statins and perhaps what my original level may have been prior to starting statins for comparison, rather than now after being off them for over two years. Personally I have little interest in becoming competent at interpreting this test's numbers, and as those who have read recent posts from others on the subject know, it does not appear to be very meaningful in many or most cases. I am unsure whether most doctors are aware of the relative uselessness of the test or not.


I mentioned LDL as being a excellent antioxidant. That may be an understatement. Let me elaborate:

LDL is an excellent antioxidant -- perhaps the very best -- because of its very unique mechanism of action. It is not so much its ability to neutralize existing oxidants in the blood and tissues (which it can also do, and is the most common mechanism of action for more typical antioxidants) but rather it is its ability to stop inflammation at its source: It repairs the membranes of damaged cells. The destruction and injury of cells triggers the inflammatory response which creates a highly oxidizing environment ("originally derived," it is believed, for killing invasive microorganisms that bust up cells). The fresh cholesterol, delivered by LDL carrier molecules, fixes the leaking cell membranes and stops the body's out-of-control immune response -- because this response is no longer elicited when the cells are fixed. What is inside the cells, now once again, stays inside the cells because the barrier is again intact. The immune system is activated by the detection of internal cellular components suddenly or chronically appearing on the outside of the cell due to damaged membranes. LDL's delivery of the goods -- fresh unoxidized cholesterol -- fortifies the cell membrane and fixes the problem. (Useless oxidized cholesterol is removed from from the damaged cells -- or is actually "ejected" from the membrane immediately upon oxidation -- and carted away by the HDL carrier.) This phenomenon is believed to be how corticosteriods work (e.g., prednisone). These drugs increase local and/or systemic LDL cholesterol levels for quickly patching up cells and stopping inflammation, and thereby stopping the pain. Inflammation can hurt.

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby Biologist » Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:41 pm

I mentioned smoking in this thread. Smoking is great for statin sales. It's also a good trick:

My primary complaint with my doctor's doctoring over the course of my statin "therapy" was that I was never advised AT ALL, EVER about ANY side effects of statins including on the occasion we doubled my dosage and also including the times I presented with symptoms he should have recognized as potentially being attributable to statins. [See first footnote below] However, another complaint regards my smoking habit at the time.

My doctor, like most other doctors, was outsmarted. And so was I. Here's how:

There is no question that smoking is a significant Risk Factor for heart disease -- we've known that for many years. However, the scientific evidence, as well as common sense, indicates that a smoking habit is not likely a clinical indication for statin therapy! I believe this truth has been quietly shrouded for the sake of increased statin sales.

Smoking is a serious Risk Factor for cancer (which is recently reported to be the NEW number one killer of Americans -- not heart disease). And so are statins. Cigarettes cause cancer and statins cause cancer too. The combination implies even more cancer -- that's the common sense part of the equation. Smoking should be a contraindication for statin use due to the additional increased risk of cancer.

The statin link to cancer appears to be well confirmed by science. The early studies showed increased cancer rates with statins use -- even over the short duration of these studies where new skin cancers, for instance, were regularly observed. Skin cells replicate at accelerated rates which explains their assistance for exposing human carcinogens early on. Remember, most other cancers take decades to develop, such as lung cancer, from smoking. It is my understanding from my readings that this embarrassing cancer fact was finally fixed: the cancer link ceased to be reported on in study findings, and later by not even tracking the cancer rates at all.

But there's more. And it's not new. This paper, written in 2001, is based on studies going back in to the beginning of statin experimentation on humans. Forget the first sentence, it's very wrong based on any and all reasonable renditions of risk / benefit analysis and cost / benefit analysis. Substitute the word "insignificant" for the word "significant" in that sentence. Fish oil would have been significant, Vitamin D would have been a miracle.


The best idea is to quit smoking if you are able, or to get nicotine (a non-carcinogen) some other way. I did both. Eighteen months before my crisis with statins (which I should add, involved an interaction with the antibiotic doxycycline which I had started taking a few days prior to my acute "statin attack.") [See second footnote below] I was certainly never advised that I should stop taking statins if and when I quit smoking, and come to think of it, as it was my ONLY risk factor aside from slightly "elevated" lipid levels (which smoking can cause, by the way), it is not at all clear to me, after some recent research, that I ever should have been on statins in the first place per the NCEP guidelines -- smoker or not! But I was an easy sell from the day I started and up until the morning of the day I quit. Sure I was. Statins were the miracle longevity elixir per the pharmomedical establishment as reported and reported and reported by the media and pharma's advertising -- and as continues to be reported and reported and reported still today.

However, my doctor was certainly aware of significant side effects from statins presumably including thoes that can develop years after starting statins as reported in the medical literature over this time period. Upon an emergency office visits the day after my damage, he acknowledged some of them. He should have known I was taking a significant risk for little or no potential return regardless of what eager pharma sales reps may have said/lied. In fact, at least today, it is becoming generally acknowledged by practicioners and researchers that if you take statins, you are going to die early, statistically speaking. The calculus is that by not taking them, when they may be legitimately indicated, you will die earlier still. Of course, not advising to supplement CoQ10 with statins basically assures early death. This should be a criminal offence. In the future it may well be. It's inexcusable.

I am not pleased that I was ever advised to take statins in the first place or advised to have my dosage increased (i.e., due to the "legitimacy issue" cited above and also due to the lack of advised consent both times). I am not pleased that I was not advised to take CoQ10 which is first year med school physiological common sense. I am not pleased that I was not advised that I should look forward to coming off statins if and when I quit smoking. But to be fair, I did not mentioned to my doctor that I had quit smoking, it just never came up. I was not anticipating ever coming off the wonder drug anyway -- I did not know any better. However, it seems to me, smoking should have been mentioned by any doctor each and every visit, when potential heart disease is the health concern.

For what is is worth, I was a very light smoker for sure when I smoked, but I certainly smoked more than "one per month" when I did. For many years prior to starting statins, I satiated my nicotine addiction with nicotine patches, nicotine gum and smokeless tobacco for health reasons (thereby presenting a small and largely treatable cancer risk, if your watching for it, but not any significant heart disease risk). I was atypically physically fit for my age -- maybe not first draft material (or second or third or fourth...) for a national football or baseball league, but in pretty decent shape never the less. (It is the carbon dioxide permanently binding to hemoglobin that lowers athletic performance -- that's why you never see it in sports.). I had tapered off and stopped smoking completely by 18 months prior to my crisis with statins. Had he asked, or if smoking had come up, I sure would have proudly informed him. However, whether he might have then suggested that I should stop taking statins, I will never know. I would like to think so. HOWEVER, for me the point is I never would have had any drug reaction with doxycycline if I were not already unnecessarily on the first dangerous drug when the second was started. I took it after my laser eye sight correction "surgery." It's the interaction which has caused the great majority of the serious harm for me. So aside from my own particular circumstances, that's what I have to say about smoking and statins. In summary, while a risk factor for heart disease, smoking is not an indication for statin therapy.

In a way, this is a pretty irresponsible post since I know that Pharma monitors this site. Pharma also sells outrageously over priced chemotherapy drugs. Until now, they may not have realized their new market expansion potential of having their sales managers (i.e., their drug reps) instruct their direct sales force (i.e., our doctors) to place cigarette smokers on chemo to head off cancer. Except for being a bit safer perhaps, it's no more asinine a concept than putting healthy people on metabolic poisons to ostensibly head off heart disease. In fact, they can do both with the same patient. Sorry if I've let the cat out of the bag.

On a related note, many doctors pretend to believe or actually believe (due to intensive brainwash therapy administered by Pharma) that if a patient tolerates statins for the first few months, they are set for a lifetime of statinization and office visits. However, while we may survive our first few years of therapeutic arsenic or cyanide dosing, that does not mean the it will not eventually do us in. If not, it is still an unreasonable risk for only similar health effects as realized by statins. It would also certainly lower the quality of life like statins do. On the upside these more classic and historic metabolic poisons do have the benefit of being much cheaper than statins -- and the best predictor of longevity is wealth, or conversely, the lack thereof.




My original prescribing doctor, who I only ever saw once or twice, moved to another city right after my first prescription of 20 mg of Lipitor. It was at that time a new doctor took over where I was subsequently put on 40 mg of Zocor for six years. So, to be fair, my newer doctor would not have been aware that I was not briefed whatsoever on the downside of statins from the start -- while he should have done so himself at the time my dosage was doubled, or at any time over the next six years. A digression: I got 80 mg tablets prescribed and cut them in two as this was cheaper. Aren't I clever. Sneaky. Rest assured Merck was and is aware of this corruption in patient behavior, and pleased. Market retention. Here's an example: I regularly remove women from statins -- about four or five a year. It's too easy. Just suggest they check the Web to find that it does nothing but damage them per all the studies -- they all quit. I've checked back to see for some of them months later. However, sometimes its harder. I had one lady confide in me her dirty guilty little secret in a very hushed voice after looking around over her shoulder at work to make certain she was not overheard: she was not interested in quitting because she was getting the best of Merck! She was cheating! She was cutting her 80 mg pills in two for a (probably illegal?) discount! Another woman I spoke with knew I simply didn't understand. She must have told me in exasperation three times in five minutes: Her AND HER HUSBAND were both getting their's FOR FREE. Her insurance covered it -- All of it -- she could not possibly quit, getting it for free and all... Oh boy. She eventually saw the light. As they say, its hard to cheat an honest person... She's now an honest woman.

End of digression. Back to it.

Erectile dysfunction is an example of a missed opportunity to mention statin side effects to me. This should have been a clear signal to my doctor of a likely or potential side effect. There was no mention of statins at the time of my Viagra prescription or later for my Cialis prescriptions. Not a word. Any word a all would have gotten me doing some online research -- and I would have quit statins the same day. (In fact, cynical as it may sound, after reading up on "doctor motivations" provided by pharma, it's crossed my mind that may have been part of the reason no word was ever mentioned.) I also complained of sleep problems at office visits and got prescriptions for Ambien. Sleep issues can sure be a statin side effect by various mechanisms including the development of, or aggravation of, sleep apnea; but there are other mechanisms too including damage to parts of the brain including the hypothalamus which regulates sleep via hormone secretion. Again, the least suggestion would have been helpful; it would have made all the difference.

My sinus problems were considerably worse over the years I was statinized -- another known side effect. I was prescribed highly overpriced and highly ineffective nasal steroid sprays instead (which were often provided to me free of charge by my doctor from "samples" left by drug sales reps -- those guys are real nice about that -- always looking after the patient). In retrospect, there were many warning signs that I did not know to look out for -- I certainly would not have been much of an alcohol drinker if I had been warned of that particular "interaction" with statins (Actually, I would have quit the statins in a heartbeat.) I may write further on that issue another time. In short, I'll say this: Don't do it. At all. NO drinking while taking statins. Particularly for men.

Regarding the Patient Insert Sheet supposedly provided with the prescription itself (I think), I cannot swear II ever saw it or got it. I have recently found it online (the current version of it anyway). However, my pills were always counted out and placed in a different bottle by the pharmacist with no insert sheet, if that is where they are suppose to be. A short K-Mart printout was included with my prescription refills, but it provided little meaningful information to me, as I remember. Most potential side effects cited in these things always seems to be equaled or exceeded by placebo -- from others I've seen. It is a doctor's responsibly to alert the patient. It says so right in the doctor's Product Label for Zocor. Now you would need a microscope for the tiny print found on that official hardcopy for doctors; I know because I got one of them from the pharmacy recently. I gave up, but then found it online a few days ago and printed it out and read it -- all 31 pages. I wonder how many doctors have actually read it, or tried to. No need though. They have their sales managers, known as drug reps, who have read parts of it and can tell doctors all they need to know when they drop by with lunch.


Doxycycline. I went looking for proof that it is an "interacter" with Zocor a few months ago. I may write on this matter in more detail another time, however, I will mention now that it turns out to be a known "interacter" with Zocor (and most other statins including Lipitor) which serves to greatly increase the plasma level of the statin drug -- often to toxic levels. (I can attest that it does indeed do that.) However, doxycycline IS NOT listed in the official Product Label text (even on its 10/2008 reprinting which I read). You'll sure find it listed here though. While it's one of the only places you will find it:


Look at the "CYP3A4 inhibitors" paragraph under the "Drug Interactions" section. (Attention doctors, note that doxycycline is known to be both a competitive substrate for AND an inhibitor of Cyp3a4!) To have listed docycycline on the official Product Lable sheet, which is clearly "medicalese" and solely intended for prescribing doctors, might have (correctly) implicated the entire tetracycline class of antibiotics which might have severely limited the commercial use of statins. It might have crippled sales. I contend it was intentionally omitted. As we know, the best time to start an antibiotic, when indicated, is generally the day before yesterday -- that is, as soon as possible if not sooner. You want to stop the organism quickly at its earliest stage. There's often no time to stop statins first and give it several days to partly clear out of a patient's system before starting a course of antibiotics. Doctors would have realized this downside to prescribing statins and would have written fewer prescriptions -- particularly for people who never had any legitimate basis for being on such a metabolically disrupting drug as a statin. The damage caused by the interaction would be masked by the fact that the patient was sick (thus the reason for the antibiotic) and the patient would not consciously notice that he/she just never quite recovered to previous levels of health. Of if so, it would naturally be attributed to lingering effects of the infection. And later, "gotten use to" by the patient. Perfect.

In fact, I have a theory. It came to me this week: Having put in about 20 hours studying Lyme disease online about five or six years ago out of interest in this evolving epidemic, and also out of interest in this biologically curious organism, I know that doxycycline is often the drug of choice for long-term treatment. Lyme disease adversely effects cholesterol levels; therefore, many people with the disease are probably on statins -- perhaps many thousands of them. Under antibiotic treatment, while much of the infectious spirochete population is killed, these patients often fair very poorly in the process, and afterwards. It is said that toxins are released by the destroyed organisms. That is likely true; it is also likely not the whole picture. The drug combination is probably wreeking havoc. Patients must be removed from the statin drug -- and particularly during their extended courses of the doxycycline treatments !

In addition, I have previously posted on the particlar damage doxycylcine (as a member of the tetracycline class of antibiotics) does to the mitochondria, which is above and beyond the effect of dangerously increasing the dosage of statins to toxic levels. This class of antibiotic is used to disrupt mitochondrial function (i.e., mitochondrial protein systhesis) in mitochondrial research. Since much, if not the majority of statin damage is directed at disruption and mutations of the mitochondria, this may be another significant reason that the two drugs should never be administered together. This hyperlink leads to that discussion months ago from a thread discussing similar drugs and potential statin interactions. Cut and paste the link * link found in my post to see how tetracycline is used in research on the mitochondria.

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby cjbrooksjc » Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:20 am

B: Great post! So many parallels to my situation. The statins caused me to be susceptible to colds and general agues, and I was prescribed heavy packet doses of antibiotics during 2 bouts of pneumonia (which I had never contracted prior to statins). I was also smoking at the time; like you, not a heavy smoker, but a smoker nonetheless, and like you, I was completely unaware and uninformed. Guess I'll end on that note - I feel a rant coming on.


Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:28 am
Location: Texas

Postby bradford » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:37 pm

Biologist, your lutein and zeaxanthin levels should have gone through the roof.:D

See **
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby Biologist » Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:05 pm

Hi, Brooks

Yes, I believe you first started on Lipitor and then on to Zocor too at about the same dosages, if I remember right. I see other similarities in our experience with statins. More later...

Hi, Bradford.

Thanks, that was interesting. I had actually quit supplementing lutein at the time (and still, as I'm still "doing a lot of eggs"). I've not gotten around to learning anything about zeaxanthin yet except to have an idea that it's a good to have some. I also quit vitamin E at the time as I figured there was plenty in all the eggs. Hopefully a good mix of the six types. My eggs were not "free range" though. I have a friend with a lot of land who raises chickens/hens and "harvests" their eggs. It is on my list to see if he can supply me. Maybe not necessary, but why not.

A few corrections/modifications:

In my 7th paragraph, I ended it with the following sentence:

"Fish oil would have been significant, Vitamin D would have
been a miracle."

On reflection, I would rewrite that as follows:

"Fish oil would have been significant; Vitamin D would have
been significant; Magnesium and others would have been
significant; the combination would have been a miracle."

In my 11th paragraph, I wrote:

"(It is the carbon dioxide permanently binding to hemoglobin
that lowers athletic performance -- that's why you never see
it in sports.)."

That should have been written more like the following:

(It is the carbon MONOXIDE permanently binding to the red
blood cells' hemoglobin molecules that lowers athletic
performance -- that's why you never see SMOKING in sports.).

Those are the two errors/typos that bother me, the rest I'll get to later maybe, along with some additional comments.

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby Biologist » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:50 pm

Interesting piece I found just now:


I like the summary title of the new study cited in the first sentence. You will too.

Doctors often have enough time to only read this "summary sentence" in their journals' table of contents. But thats OK. What's more to know?

Can't wait for the new one underway: "Statins Associated with Reduced Muscle & Nerve Pain, Raised IQs and Enhanced Sexual Perfomance"


Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby cjbrooksjc » Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:58 am

Loved it (GD sons-of-Bi@#$%s).

Here's a cut from my statin story:

"I was also experiencing dyspnea, a shortness of breath, especially when I lay down to sleep, and my legs twitched uncontrollably. I had eye-popping fits of coughing that often climaxed with vomiting. "

Here's a cut from the link you included:

"• Statins may very rarely be associated with interstitial lung disease. Patients should seek help from their doctor if they develop presenting features of interstitial lung disease such as dyspnoea, non-productive cough, and deterioration in general health (e.g., fatigue, weight loss, and fever)"

GD sons-of Bi@#$%s!!

Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:28 am
Location: Texas

Postby Biologist » Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:45 pm

My sentiments exactly, Brooks. Others and I appreciate your way with words, err, symbols, that is! :)

Here's a recent post of mine, and also a link to an article published today by Dr. Mercola, that I'd like to have linked to this thread: ... 0585#10585


BTW, I am aware that Steve Berman, of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, has reviewed this thread. They are also in litigation against Pfizer, as we were informed earlier by poster, sylviak, in this post: ... 0226#10226

"The suit alleges these educational programs deliberately
misrepresented the drug's label to encourage Lipitor therapy
for people in the moderate-risk category who didn't need the

Our doctors must stop allowing the friendly fox to mind the henhouse for them.

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Postby cjbrooksjc » Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:04 pm

B: I would LOVE to witness a successful litigation against these GD sons-of-Bi@#$%s !! :evil:

Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:28 am
Location: Texas

Postby Biologist » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:01 pm


I stated in this thread that the printed Zocor product label was 31 pages. I remembered wrong. It actually printes out at 21 pages.

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Return to Diet and Dietary Supplements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest