tim-from-pa
Member
Right now, I have for the past two weeks what I jokingly refer to as the "Jingle Bell's Palsy". I had Bell's Palsy before at age 15 from the shingles. When I got these symptoms again 2 weeks ago, I figured it was not a stroke, as the symptoms were not right, but I had it checked out anyway and they confirmed my diagnosis as well. It runs its course basically (probably from the same virus reactivating from stress as this time of the year it seems I'm living my life correcting everyone else's or the universe's mistakes). Seriously, I feel fine otherwise and am going to work and all that.
HOWEVER, in this part of the woods, one has to also be concerned with Lyme's disease causing the palsy, in which I have 4/5 antibody markers --- I'm going to retest later (nasty little buggers), and I had a known tick bite.
IN THE MEANTIME, and this is the subject of this thread actually, the doctor asked me if I wanted to have a blood test for anything else while I was at it, such as cholesterol. I said, "No, thanks, doctor. I can care less what my cholesterol is because I am one who does not jump the bandwagon. I don't believe it causes heart disease or strokes." I proceeded to say, "Suppose I have a 267 and have a heart attack in 2 years without treatment? Let's say I get it down to 167, you know what will happen?" He joked and said, "maybe in 3 years instead?" I said, "No. I'll still have the heart attack in 2 years but with a 167 level instead of a 267, plus a lot poorer from the cost of the meds!"
He disagreed, but he is not one of these doctors who force their opinions and said I have a right to believe that because nobody is really certain.
Actually, what I said is probably more on target. The incidents with Vytorin and resulting lawsuits proven that lowering cholesterol does not reduce heart attacks at all, and they even admit it. But wait? Isn't that why we're taking that to begin with? To reduce the risk??? :eeeekkk :toofunny
Statin drugs (e.g. Lipitor) have a marginal effect on better outcomes, but that's NOT because they lower the cholesterol per se, but because they have an "anti-inflammatory effect" which is the newer line of thinking, i.e. the arteries become inflamed, and the cholesterol races to patch them up. No inflammation, no build-up. However, the marginal benefits is nullified by the severe muscle damage, and cancer risks of such drugs, not to mention making you poorer doing so. One woman friend of mine lost her friend to these drugs as they killed her.
So you see, I do my research. Oftentimes people hear me just mouthing off against such stuff and those who believe in the almighty medical science of man, particularly those inclined away from God and placing their trust more in man, think that I don't know what I'm saying and did not back my stuff up with facts. But cholesterol pills are dished out like candy, being the SECOND most prescribed medication, and yet the incidents of heart disease basically INCREASED. What does that say if the answer was in a simple pill? Ditch the pills, and at the very least your pocketbook will thank you for it.
HOWEVER, in this part of the woods, one has to also be concerned with Lyme's disease causing the palsy, in which I have 4/5 antibody markers --- I'm going to retest later (nasty little buggers), and I had a known tick bite.
IN THE MEANTIME, and this is the subject of this thread actually, the doctor asked me if I wanted to have a blood test for anything else while I was at it, such as cholesterol. I said, "No, thanks, doctor. I can care less what my cholesterol is because I am one who does not jump the bandwagon. I don't believe it causes heart disease or strokes." I proceeded to say, "Suppose I have a 267 and have a heart attack in 2 years without treatment? Let's say I get it down to 167, you know what will happen?" He joked and said, "maybe in 3 years instead?" I said, "No. I'll still have the heart attack in 2 years but with a 167 level instead of a 267, plus a lot poorer from the cost of the meds!"
He disagreed, but he is not one of these doctors who force their opinions and said I have a right to believe that because nobody is really certain.
Actually, what I said is probably more on target. The incidents with Vytorin and resulting lawsuits proven that lowering cholesterol does not reduce heart attacks at all, and they even admit it. But wait? Isn't that why we're taking that to begin with? To reduce the risk??? :eeeekkk :toofunny
Statin drugs (e.g. Lipitor) have a marginal effect on better outcomes, but that's NOT because they lower the cholesterol per se, but because they have an "anti-inflammatory effect" which is the newer line of thinking, i.e. the arteries become inflamed, and the cholesterol races to patch them up. No inflammation, no build-up. However, the marginal benefits is nullified by the severe muscle damage, and cancer risks of such drugs, not to mention making you poorer doing so. One woman friend of mine lost her friend to these drugs as they killed her.
So you see, I do my research. Oftentimes people hear me just mouthing off against such stuff and those who believe in the almighty medical science of man, particularly those inclined away from God and placing their trust more in man, think that I don't know what I'm saying and did not back my stuff up with facts. But cholesterol pills are dished out like candy, being the SECOND most prescribed medication, and yet the incidents of heart disease basically INCREASED. What does that say if the answer was in a simple pill? Ditch the pills, and at the very least your pocketbook will thank you for it.
