Ad Widget

Collapse

Time for Statins (Lipitor)?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    srinath_69, please stop making every topic The Srinath Show. That's fine for a topic that you started, but it's annoying to have every topic become about you.
    I moved to primalforums.com to escape the spam.

    Comment


    • #62
      Vegan propagandist are such a bore.

      reducing saturated fat in the diet produced " no effects on the risk of dying"....
      reducing saturated fat in the diet produced " no effects on the risk of dying"....
      reducing saturated fat in the diet produced " no effects on the risk of dying"....
      reducing saturated fat in the diet produced " no effects on the risk of dying"....


      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by sharperhawk View Post
        srinath_69, please stop making every topic The Srinath Show. That's fine for a topic that you started, but it's annoying to have every topic become about you.
        So you prefer the pseudo science presented via twinkie diet then ??? Cool gotcha.
        Thanks.
        Srinath.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by JBean View Post
          MusicAttorney,
          You do a good job of searching out opinions and building your case. However, science doesn't work that way; there's no opposing counsel, no judge, no higher court to push back at your ideas. Law is oppositional while science is cooperative. To come to a valid conclusion in science, you need to consider all of the available literature and the various ways that it can be interpreted rather than shade interpretations or pick and choose what works best to support the conclusion that you want.
          This is wrong on every level. First, there is opposing counsel as demonstrated by the contrary opinions expressed in this thread including yours. Second, there is a judge in the form of every one of us having the opportunity to read what’s being posted, examine the evidence, and come to a decision.

          Third, I have no idea what you mean that science is “cooperative” but it doesn’t matter because it’s demonstrably false. Do you really think pharmaceutical “science” is cooperative? Are you suggesting that many of the scientists and institutions who provide the information that give you comfort in your opinions are not driven by money, politics, ego, and other factors that are in complete opposition to the concept of cooperation? I certainly admit those same factors are potentially part of the scientists and institutions who provide information that give me comfort. In fact, a key reason that I’ve chosen some of the studies I’ve provided is because they seem more objective than others.

          Finally, lawyers are often described as “zealous advocates” for their clients. I would ask you to point out one place in any of my posts where I have been a zealous advocate. In fact, I’ve been very specific that the information I was providing to the OP was intended to be “helpful in your pursuit to answer the questions in your original post.” If I was a prosecutor or defense attorney and gave a closing argument as soft as that, I’d be sued for malpractice. I’m simply providing specific information and why I think it’s credible so that the original poster (and others) can decide for themselves whether they also think it’s credible.

          You suggested that I “shade interpretations or pick and choose what works best to support the conclusion that" I want. But isn’t that exactly what you did when you provided those links to the Cochrane Reviews? And those studies seem particularly hypocritical coming from someone who previously said my sources are “people who make their livings as contrarians, but don’t do any direct research.” Of course I'm picking what works best to support my conclusions (while acknowledging there are contrary views). Please feel free to pick the ones that work best for you and can throw some light on my shade.

          Speaking of the reviews you provided, let’s look at the second one you provided http://www.cochrane.org/CD002128/VAS...ovascular-risk

          I’m really having trouble understanding this. And when I say that, I’m not talking about the study. I’m talking about understanding what possible motivation you could’ve had for providing that link for me (or anyone else) to read.

          Here is the stated objective of that study: "To assess the effects of providing dietary advice to achieve sustained dietary changes or improved cardiovascular risk profile among healthy adults."

          By it’s clear terms, the objective of this study has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. However, since you provided the link I assumed there must be something you thought was relevant in the study.

          The title of this thread is "Time For Statins." And, in that regard, the Cochrane Review mentions the word statin 10 times in a 117 page PDF. Most of those mentions come in one paragraph and are expressly tied to the following question by the authors:

          "Why is it important to do this review?"

          And here was their answer to their question: "While It might turn out that the mass-medication strategy is effective with respect to cardiovascular disease prevention across the whole risk factor distribution, and has no downside, there may be many who will opt for behaviour change rather than daily medication for various reasons, if given a balanced and evidence-based choice." Therefore, this review had nothing to do with statins themselves and was simply about whether giving people dietary advice would be sufficient in causing positive dietary change as an alternative to long-term statin care.

          Another theme in this thread is about the impact of fats on cardiovascular health. However, the author's state that the dietary advice contained in the studies in the meta-analysis included the following: "We considered trials involving advice to decrease consumption of one or more of fat, saturated fatty acids, cholesterol or salt; or increase consumption of one or more of fruit, vegetables, polyunsaturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, fish, fibre or potassium; or both."

          Do you not think those represent a huge number of confounders in the various studies that could skew improvement/worsening in cardiovascular health or risk (i.e., other than fat and cholesterol)?

          However, all is not lost. At least there is the certainty that comes from dietary intake (or reduction) being self-reported (as was the case for these studies).

          Since cholesterol has also been part of the discussion, I looked to see what the Cochrane Review had to say about that. Here is what the study concluded on this point:

          "Modest improvements were shown in cardiovascular risk factors, such as blood pressure and total and LDL-cholesterol levels. In the trials that separated effects by gender, women tended to make larger reductions in fat intake but there was insufficient evidence to show whether this translated to a larger reduction in total cholesterol levels. Two trials followed people up 10 to 15 years after the end of the trials and showed that the beneficial changes in cardiovascular risk factors may have resulted in a reduced incidence of heart disease, stroke or heart attack, although more evidence is needed to confirm this.

          Seriously? Do you really think this study provides a single shred of support that backs up any of the statements you are making in your posts?

          If this is the kind of data that makes you comfortable with the beliefs and assertions you’ve stated herein, then we just analyze data very, very differently.

          MA
          Last edited by MusicAttorney; 05-21-2017, 02:06 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            MA by KO.
            Finally have given up on MDA Forum.
            My friends, I'll see ya at primalforums.com where I'm user #4, and we do have a moderator.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Rig D View Post
              MA by KO.
              No winners or losers my friend.
              Its full of variables, some variables we know, some we don't know. Some we don't even know of. Some that we think we know but seem to fail. Some that works with a delay and gets attributed wrong, or well, who knows.

              I ate a few days in a grazing style lots of veggies, nearly all of it classified by Monsatan as weeds. I did have Monsatan approved broccoli though.
              I had lots of fermented foods, including Beer and vino. And AFAIK - no meat. or very little on one night. I had several chai's with 30 gm sugar and milk, and fruits galore, cherries and blackberries as well as some junk carbs. I was constantly eating a few days. Especially bad Friday and Saturday. I seem to have a good preference now for fruit and away from sugar.

              I lost 5lb and felt nice and happy and full. Important thing is, I ate almost no added salt. Anyway I probably have the fasting insulin level of a marathon runner. I dry fasted 2 days, water fasted 1 and dry again for 1 more ending Wednesday night. That whole period I didn't lose any weight. I may have lost this weight in that fast's whoosh stage.

              Anyway I am not saying a veggie heavy diet doesn't feel good, but IMHO, it has to be real veggies. Not the crap monsatan peddles. The more of that I eat, the more I feel bloated and sickly and pathetically dull and have insane cravings for meat. The best part was, 1/2hr from cut to eat. Cant beat that.

              Thanks.
              Srinath.

              Comment

              Working...
              X