Medical Field/Drugs and Death

Off Topic
201

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I think many diseases could be prevented through diet/exercise.
[/quote]

Great. If you feel compelled to tell the world, great.

That is the wonder of free enterprise. You can do what you want. You took the time to read about this stuff.

No amount of regulation is going to make people do that. All regulation does is build the fences cattle are lead through to the slaughter house.

Regulation makes people sheep. Liberation makes people the boarder collie. But a person has to want to achieve in order to.

[/quote]

You really do make some of the best arguments on the forum. At times, it’s a very cut-throat delivery but I for one like that - no beating around the bush.

The idea of regulation, in theory, sounds like the right answer. However, whose decision is it as to whom is the regulator? The regulators have always been people with great money and power. They will continue to make decisions based on making more money and achieving more power, not necessarily what is best for the people.

Regulation does not make people make the correct choices, it simply limits the options they have to choose from. There is no way to fairly regulate things without infringing on somebody’s rights or beliefs. Therefor, all choices must be available and people given the freedom to make their own choices, right or wrong…good or bad.

I won’t interrupt you though since you do fine on your own and much better than myself.

As far as medicine and killing people:

My mother’s cousin didn’t believe in medical treatment of any kind. She spent a few years in agony with cancer and wouldn’t let anybody help her. No medications, no radiation treatments, no nothing. She died last week in a lot of pain.

I’m all for natural remedies and diet and exercise (these are what I use as prevention) but there are times when you need something that works and you need it now. Sometimes it’s just a matter of life or death and cutting gluten out of your diet or eating more eggs or stop eating cereal and bananas are absurd and not appropriate.

[/quote]

When you’re dealing with T2 diabetes, you better damn well believe that it is appropriate to cut those foods. CAncer? I would actually say even then it would help, cure it no… But, considering the mechanism that tumors grow cutting carbs would darn well be a good idea.
[/quote]

She is dead now. She needed immediate medical care and refused it and did choose to go down the path that you’re suggesting. Didn’t do her much good though.[/quote]

Yeah, when it comes to cancer this stuff should be more about prevention than treatment IMO, once one has it gotta do what you gotta do. I thought about this last night about which direction I would choose for myself.

I had to choose for my dog last year and based upon the evidence and type of cancer I chose chemo, but I also took the natural/holistic approach… things don’t always have to be one way or the other. I think combining all practical modalities should be considered.

202

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
anyone else think that prescription drugs shouldn’t be allowed to be advertised on TV?

[/quote]

<— raises hand

If cigarettes have been banned from tv, then so should prescription drugs. [/quote]

Why stop there?

Lets have the government ban McDonalds and Video Game ads. Lets make sure they get rid of product placement in movies and TV as well. Bad food and inactivity are bad.

Cars are bad for the environment, get those shits off the TV. Truck? No brainer…

I was thinking, ads for tourism make poor people feel bad, we shoudl stop those.

The show Jersey Shore, promotes behavior that is immoral, ban the shit out of Snookie.

Sugar Smacks, PopTarts, awful breakfast choices, see ya.

Guns are bad mkay, so lets get rid off all the programing on that. Pawn Stars buys guns all the time, and any war documentary promotes violence. Get it off the screen.

Also, crazy people dye their hair red and slaughter people calling themselves the Joker: the following things should be banned: all offensive movies, hair dye commercials and Oreo cookies.

You know, there are some pretty offensive books out there. We should get a list together, and get rid of them somehow… Oh I know, we can burn them.

What? I’m trying to save people here.[/quote]

awesome post

203

[quote]kakno wrote:
I’ve really missed beans’s posts.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
for Kakno regarding statins

"The only large clinical trial looking exclusively at the effect of statins on people over the age of 70 provides clear evidence for avoiding these drugs for use in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older people who have not had a previous heart attack, stroke, angina, or other cardiovascular diseases or family history. Five thousand eight hundred and four people aged 70 through 82 were randomized to get a statin or a placebo and were followed for an average of 3.2 years. For the more than 3,200 people in this study without prior cardiovascular disease, the statin had no beneficial effect in preventing subsequent cardiovascular disease. There was, however, a significant 25% increased amount of cancer in those getting the statin, particularly gastrointestinal cancers, the cancer predicted in the animal studies of these drugs (see below). The increase was larger the greater the number of years the drug was being used. No other study analyzing cancer exclusively in large numbers of older patients getting statins has refuted this finding of increased gastrointestinal cancer.5

In summary, people over 70 using statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have no benefit, compared to a placebo, but an increased risk of muscle damage (rhabdomyolysis), liver damage, and, as found in the study described above, an increased risk of cancer. It needs to be emphasized, however, that for those over 70 who have had previous cardiovascular disease, the use of statins may be beneficial."

Hall KM, Luepker RV. Is hypercholesterolemia a risk factor and should it be treated in the elderly?. American Journal of Health Promotion Jul 2000; 14: 347 - 356. [/quote]
God forbid you actually go to pubmed, type in “statins primary prevention”, click over 65 and narrow it down to meta-analyses and systematic review and see for yourself that the newer science does not agree with you.

Are you really 31? It feels like arguing with an 18-year old who thinks he knows everything.

Thanks to pharmaceutical companies being in business all this time despite how we treat them there are fantastic new drugs for various cancers, hematological disorders and RA. I’d much rather finance that with my taxes than jobs that contribute nothing to society.

The Hodge twins say it best:

lol

204

My dad had his first heart attack several years ago.
He “cleaned up” his diet (no egg yolks, no butter, no fatty meats), and was put on a statin drug.

And he had another heart attack.
Then 2 years later, another heart attack.

Now his doctor put him on another statin drug. He’s now on 2 of them (because everyone knows that 2 is better than one).

I’ll bet my right hand that he suffers another heart attack in the coming years.
But oh… I guess he has that “bad gene”.

205

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
My dad had his first heart attack several years ago.
He “cleaned up” his diet (no egg yolks, no butter, no fatty meats), and was put on a statin drug.

And he had another heart attack.
Then 2 years later, another heart attack.

Now his doctor put him on another statin drug. He’s now on 2 of them (because everyone knows that 2 is better than one).

I’ll bet my right hand that he suffers another heart attack in the coming years.
But oh… I guess he has that “bad gene”.[/quote]

If you were in his situation, what would you do instead? Genuinely curious.

206

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
My dad had his first heart attack several years ago.
He “cleaned up” his diet (no egg yolks, no butter, no fatty meats), and was put on a statin drug.

And he had another heart attack.
Then 2 years later, another heart attack.

Now his doctor put him on another statin drug. He’s now on 2 of them (because everyone knows that 2 is better than one).

I’ll bet my right hand that he suffers another heart attack in the coming years.
But oh… I guess he has that “bad gene”.[/quote]

If you were in his situation, what would you do instead? Genuinely curious.[/quote]

Listen to his son.

:wink:

207

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

Yeah, when it comes to cancer this stuff should be more about prevention than treatment IMO, once one has it gotta do what you gotta do. I thought about this last night about which direction I would choose for myself.

I had to choose for my dog last year and based upon the evidence and type of cancer I chose chemo, but I also took the natural/holistic approach… things don’t always have to be one way or the other. I think combining all practical modalities should be considered.
[/quote]

Well, there is no sure-fire way of knowing if you could have prevented something or not. You could develop a brain hemorrhage second-guessing yourself.

Sorry to hear about your dog. I’m glad that you considered all options treating him/her.

Another lady I used to work with opted for both approaches with her cancer treatment. She lived and was eventually well again. Nobody knows whether is was the chemo or her different wheat grass concoctions and such but one of the two worked.

208


What in the hell are you guys thinking? Your advanced degrees, decades of experience, and first hand knowledge have no standing against people with certifications. I mean they studied for WEEKS; how dare you doubt their lack of experience, medical knowledge and personal achievements?

The gall of you all.

209

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
What in the hell are you guys thinking? Your advanced degrees, decades of experience, and first hand knowledge have no standing against people with certifications. I mean they studied for WEEKS; how dare you doubt their lack of experience, medical knowledge and personal achievements?

The gall of you all.[/quote]

When misdiagnosis is up to 40% according to some studies, the Godlike infallibility of a degreed, experienced professional is greatly diminished.

Professionals built the Titanic. Amateurs built the Ark.

210

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
My dad had his first heart attack several years ago.
He “cleaned up” his diet (no egg yolks, no butter, no fatty meats), and was put on a statin drug.

And he had another heart attack.
Then 2 years later, another heart attack.

Now his doctor put him on another statin drug. He’s now on 2 of them (because everyone knows that 2 is better than one).

I’ll bet my right hand that he suffers another heart attack in the coming years.
But oh… I guess he has that “bad gene”.

[/quote]

How old is your dad? If he’s under 80 (according to Chris Kresser), 70 if you follow the info I posted earlier, the data does some to suggest it would be of benefit to prolong life since he has had prior heart issues.

Now, it appears that statins work because they are anti-inflammatory, so my curiosity is, IF one is willing to make the life style changes, could a more natural anti-inflammatory approach work just as well.

211

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
What in the hell are you guys thinking? Your advanced degrees, decades of experience, and first hand knowledge have no standing against people with certifications. I mean they studied for WEEKS; how dare you doubt their lack of experience, medical knowledge and personal achievements?

The gall of you all.[/quote]

When misdiagnosis is up to 40% according to some studies, the Godlike infallibility of a degreed, experienced professional is greatly diminished.

Professionals built the Titanic. Amateurs built the Ark.[/quote]

LOL, I thought unicorns and fairies built the Ark :wink:

212

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
My dad had his first heart attack several years ago.
He “cleaned up” his diet (no egg yolks, no butter, no fatty meats), and was put on a statin drug.

And he had another heart attack.
Then 2 years later, another heart attack.

Now his doctor put him on another statin drug. He’s now on 2 of them (because everyone knows that 2 is better than one).

I’ll bet my right hand that he suffers another heart attack in the coming years.
But oh… I guess he has that “bad gene”.[/quote]

If you were in his situation, what would you do instead? Genuinely curious.[/quote]

Listen to his son.

:wink:

[/quote]

Have his cardiologist(s) put him on CoEQ10 (say, 200) and Vit C (at 2X500)?

Statins interfere with the creation of CoEQ10 (and hormones for that matter) and this can actually lead to recurring complications. Ample CoEQ10, statins, and Vit C are studied in Israel as actually reversing damage to the heart muscle itself.

Statins are a good thing, but they do come at a cost.

Mrs. Jewbacca

213

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

When misdiagnosis is up to 40% according to some studies, the Godlike infallibility of a degreed, experienced professional is greatly diminished. [/quote]

What is the misdagnosis rate of those educated by youtube and internet websites?

No one is saying modern medical community is perfect, nor are they done getting better. They try to every day.

Well, seeing as one was a actual ship that worked perfectly outside of being driven by an asshole, and the other is a made up fairy tale… I don’t see how this quote helps your position.

214

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I can’t stand it that almost every young person and kid I know is on some fucking ADHD-type of medication.

[/quote]

My honest take on that is what the hell do you expect kids to act like when our news programs contain 3 separate lines of news going at the same time and video games allow faster relation to random moving objects? My little cousin plays Call of Duty and makes videos on youtube showing other kids how to play. His reaction time to the things on screen is ridiculous. You can only get that quick at something like that at the age of 13 by literally growing up with it.

In effect, we have trained kids to have milli-second attention spans.[/quote]

A friend of mine is now happy her son is on ADHD medicine, she said he’s finally starting to do better in school. Pre-diagnosis he never sat down or paid attention to anything BUT he did pay attention to video games. At 10 he will sit and watch intensely for hour a youtube of someone playing then go beat it himself… My only issue is he didn’t need ADHD to concentrate on video games, seems like the prescription is not for him but for the mother’s lack of desire to not spoil him.

Jehova
I understand your argument but I’m not sure you understand the people your training. How many of them have done their training routine for longer than 3 months? How many of their routines will only help if they STICK to it for several months? Doctors don’t always have that luxury. I’ve seen vitamin D, better diets and exercise help people, then they get tired of it and their health fades also. I’ve seen the same people complain and not understand why they are feeling like shit again, even though they didn’t have those problems while taking their vitamins, eating a better diet, and following exercise. Again a doctor can’t afford for this person not to have a magic pill that they don’t have to question some Dr. Oz nut to make them feel better. It can end up with that person having a stroke or worse.

Lastly YOU ARE NOT a doctor. You can be more dangerous then them. No offense, I believe in many of the things you do but the interactions of what you suggest with medicines elderly people take can be harmful if not deadly. I hate to tell you but too many eggs DO cause dangerous levels of cholesterol in people who sit on their ass all day and already have high cholestory. I’ve seen Dr. Oz fans prescribe fish oil to people with heart issues, most Doctors know this can be harmful. The same with Vitamin D. Statins may be the worst drug in the world but it’s still has a quicker result than anything you’ve suggested. A 70 y/o who has watched golden girls reruns while eating muffins for 8 hours a day the last 30 years can’t afford to miss the short term effects of statins.

Unfortunately we live in a short cut world prescriptions are necessary
Need to spoil your kids - Give the kids Ritalin.
Workaholic who skips meals - Take a Xanax
Social Drinker 4 hours every night - ACE inhibitor.
Don’t have time to spend with your kids - Prozac
[/quote]

So, you’re telling me a couple whole eggs a day will be worse for someone cholesterol issue or not than a bowl of cheerios, fruit and skim milk?[/quote]
lol I never said that, but for entertainment purposes …

Heads and tails are different sides of the same coin. You giving a generic diet from John Beradi isn’t much better than a Dr. giving a generic diet from the RDA. So from YOUR link

1)Eggs has no adverse affects on cholesterol - MEANING for the healthy men it did not put them in unhealthy levels.
2)Eggs after a month had no effect on cholesterol - while it didn’t raise it also DIDN’T lower.
In general
1)Cheerios DOES lower cholesterol - so much so the FDA warned them of possible drug label(probably marketing but effect the same)
2)Skim milk is better then whole Milk for lowering cholesterol
3)A diet of whole fruit does lower cholesterol.

So someone with fatally high levels of cholesterol comes to you for advice and you recommend a diet of eggs? Do you think they are going to add that or replace their cheerios fruit and skim milk? One month later that person with fatally high levels is going to have the same levels vs 10%± lower. If 2 months later they die should you be responsible? Should you be required to have the same $1 mil dollar malpractice insurance as a Dr? Would you even give the same recommendation if you career depended on it? Would you feel any guilt if they died instead of having 20% lower cholesterol?

I try not to believe in snake oil, different problems have different resolutions. Eggs are a great food but that’s not the answer to every situation.

215

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I’ve had 2 sensitive conversations with my dad about the 2 statin drugs he’s on.
In his eyes, his doctor is a god.

I tried explaining to my dad the truths about cholesterol, but he won’t budge. I told him my numbers are all normal even though I eat a lot of eggs and fatty red meat. His reply: “Looks like you don’t have the bad gene.”

I gave up trying to change him. Though I worry about him.
[/quote]

I hear ya man, but according to some on this thread we’re both wrong and out of line.[/quote]

It’s never out of line when it’s in the best interest of a loved one.

[/quote]

http://www.lifescienceslegalinsights.com/2012/07/gene-therapy-wins-approval-in-europe-.html

the “bad gene” can now be fixed

216

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

When misdiagnosis is up to 40% according to some studies, the Godlike infallibility of a degreed, experienced professional is greatly diminished. [/quote]

What is the misdagnosis rate of those educated by youtube and internet websites?

No one is saying modern medical community is perfect, nor are they done getting better. They try to every day.

Well, seeing as one was a actual ship that worked perfectly outside of being driven by an asshole, and the other is a made up fairy tale… I don’t see how this quote helps your position. [/quote]

It’s just a metaphor for the inaccuracy of conventional wisdom.

217

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

It’s just a metaphor for the inaccuracy of conventional wisdom.
[/quote]

haha, I know. I’m busting you balls because you seem fired up on this issue, and you don’t normally get like that. (Not that it is a bad thing)

218

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
My dad had his first heart attack several years ago.
He “cleaned up” his diet (no egg yolks, no butter, no fatty meats), and was put on a statin drug.

And he had another heart attack.
Then 2 years later, another heart attack.

Now his doctor put him on another statin drug. He’s now on 2 of them (because everyone knows that 2 is better than one).

I’ll bet my right hand that he suffers another heart attack in the coming years.
But oh… I guess he has that “bad gene”.[/quote]

If you were in his situation, what would you do instead? Genuinely curious.[/quote]

Listen to his son.

:wink:

[/quote]

Have his cardiologist(s) put him on CoEQ10 (say, 200) and Vit C (at 2X500)?

Statins interfere with the creation of CoEQ10 (and hormones for that matter) and this can actually lead to recurring complications. Ample CoEQ10, statins, and Vit C are studied in Israel as actually reversing damage to the heart muscle itself.

Statins are a good thing, but they do come at a cost.

Mrs. Jewbacca[/quote]

Mrs Jewbacca! Thanks so much for posting!

This is part of the exact plan I wanted to recommend!
But I’ve had 2 conversations with my dad about my concerns, and he won’t budge.

Your post, especially coming from a professional, is exactly the case some of us are making here. It’s not that it’s a degree vs certification issue (as it seems to turn out thus far), but more of desire to getting accurate information out there in proportional quantity to the pharm meds being pushed quite heavily here in the states.

Thanks again for your post!

219

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

1)Eggs has no adverse affects on cholesterol - MEANING for the healthy men it did not put them in unhealthy levels.
2)Eggs after a month had no effect on cholesterol - while it didn’t raise it also DIDN’T lower.
In general
1)Cheerios DOES lower cholesterol - so much so the FDA warned them of possible drug label(probably marketing but effect the same)
2)Skim milk is better then whole Milk for lowering cholesterol
3)A diet of whole fruit does lower cholesterol.

So someone with fatally high levels of cholesterol comes to you for advice and you recommend a diet of eggs? Do you think they are going to add that or replace their cheerios fruit and skim milk? One month later that person with fatally high levels is going to have the same levels vs 10%± lower. If 2 months later they die should you be responsible? Should you be required to have the same $1 mil dollar malpractice insurance as a Dr? Would you even give the same recommendation if you career depended on it? Would you feel any guilt if they died instead of having 20% lower cholesterol?

I try not to believe in snake oil, different problems have different resolutions. Eggs are a great food but that’s not the answer to every situation.
[/quote]

wuutt???

firstly you have deemed high cholesterol to be a bad thing, the mechanism by which CVD occurs is not caused by cholesterol.

so even though the cheerios might lower cholesterol they contribute to the actual cause of CVD, but hey your cholesterol is lower right?

220

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

Sure. I just want to be clear, I am NOT dumping on statins. They are excellent drugs, and I suspect (due to their ability to act as anti-inflamatories) will be shown to have anti-cancer effects, in addition to their cardiac benefits.

I am especially fond of Crestor, in that it can be dosed EOD at very low doses and still be effective (and have less side effects).

But, coupling it with CoEq10 and VitC is critical. In fact, several of the drug companies have patents (or have patents pending) that are simply combos of the statin with CoEQ10 and they just haven’t worked their way through the USA FDA.

Mrs. Jewbacca