Going off Lipitor

[bclark]

Had new bloodwork on November 2nd. New results were: Overall Cholesterol 229 LDL 161 HDL 43 and LP(a) 25.
Overall went down from September as well as LDL dropped. Wondering if I should expect a further drop. Planning to check again in February 2010.

Meanwhile feel great. No chest pains or anyhting when I work out ( Cardio) at heart rate of 126 to 140 BPM for 20 to 40 minutes.

Told my cardiologist that I had been off the 80mg Lipitor since June 2009. Also, brought alot of literature about Vitamin C , Lysine/Proline therapy. Not met with alot of interest, mostly comments reagarding no science supporting claims of effectivness.

When I brought up discussion that low cholesterol levels of 116 and LDL of 66 may be unhealthy for a 56 year old the reaction was that since I seemd to tolerate the 80mg Lipitor for over 5 years I should stay on it.

I asked why Canadian Lipitor has a warning regarding CoQ 10 but not the US Lipitor and the reaction was if you think Co Q10 is a problem then take a supplement.

I am continuing to dose at 10 to 12 grams Vitamin C per day using a combo of Tower Acorsine 9, Tower CardioAde and Vitamin C foundation Vitamin C powder.

Bowel tolerance ranges around the 12 gram level but not all the time.

[ofonorow]

Thank you for the report. Sounds like very good news to me - great results w/out the risk of Lipitor. Doctor's reaction is typical. Good job keeping at him. In my experience, at the "correct" dosage and you are probably close, total cholesterol will edge towards 180 mg/dl. If not, you may have other toxicity your body is reacting to and creating cholesterol to help fight/control it.

p.s. Every time a doctor says "there is no science" in support of the Pauling therapy, the patient should ask, "are you willing to run a study?" (If the cardiologist says yes, let us know!)

[J.Lilinoe]

I asked why Canadian Lipitor has a warning regarding CoQ 10 but not the US Lipitor and the reaction was if you think Co Q10 is a problem then take a supplement.

Most doctors KNOW that statins cause a COQ10 depletion of the heart. We need to tell them that it is a criminal act to prescribe a drug that causes congestive heart failure.

[Dolev]

mostly comments reagarding no science supporting claims of effectivness.

The truth is, there is no science supporting the claims of effectiveness of Lipitor. At least no good science.

As to Americans not being warned about CoQ10, I think it was Merck that took out a patent for a statin with Q10 years ago. My belief is that this patent will be the major evidence that the damages of statins were long known, when a class action suit is brought against the pushers of statin drugs.

[ofonorow]

Most doctors KNOW that statins cause a COQ10 depletion of the heart

Well, if you are speaking world-wide, probably yes. If US doctors, probably not. (How would they know? They are not trained and really have no idea what CoQ10 is or does.)

And another retort to the common refrain "there is no science to support the Pauling therapy." We should respond, "Maybe, but there is no science that shows it doesn't work!"

[Dolev]

The most basic science - and medicine - for thousands of years is OBSERVATIONAL. You try something and watch what happens. The "no proof" trip that doctors are on about vitamins is the biggist BS fraud imaginable. Proof isn't even a scientific concept. Science doesn't prove things are true - it examines evidence and finds the most likely explanations.

[w6nrw]

Very, very well stated, Dolev.

[bclark]

I came across Dr. Mintz while looking for information about the statins. You can see my e-mail to Dr. Mintz and his reply. he did not respond to my inquiry as to Dr. Levy.

From: Matthew Mintz [mailto:mmintz@mfa.gwu.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 5:14 PM
To: Bill Clark
Subject: Re: Statins

the few trials of vitamin C and vitamin E have not only been negative, but have shown harm to patients. More patients taking Vitamin C or E had heart attacks. Go to my blogg and type in "vitamin" under the search box. I have a few posts and references. Of all the things listed, the only one proven to work is Niacin.

Matthew Mintz, MD, FACP
Associate Professor of Medicine
Director, Primary Care Clerkship
George Washington University School of Medicine
Washington, DC
202- 741-2194 (voice mail)
202- 741-2222 for appointments, prescription refills, after hours and urgent matters

>>> Bill Clark <BClark@redimail.com> 11/16/2009 1:56 PM >>>
Hello Dr. Mintz,
I came across your name on a blog while surfing for information about Lipitor vs. Crestor & Vytorin.
I was wondering whether you have any information/opinion regarding the treatment of Heart Disease/Cholesterol using another method of treatment known as the Unified Theory using a combination of Vitamin C 8 to 10 grams per day as well as Lysine 5 grams per day, Proline , C0Q10, Taurine, L-carnitine. Supplemented by B3 (Niacin) .
Also wondering if you have read any of the literature by Dr. Thomas Levy regarding the causes of heart disease.
Appreciate any comments you may have.
By the way I am a 56 year old male who had 3 Cordis Cypher Stents implanted to my heart over 5 years ago. I had been on 80 mg. daily of Lipitor until June of this year when I started research and came across the theory I mentioned above.
I find it odd that the Vitamin C theory sounds very interesting to say the least and also logical, yet from what I can find there have never been any major clinical trials to test it out.

Bill Clark

[ofonorow]

Can you post the links he is referring to, or better yet, point to the studies he has mentioned? That would help a great deal, and then I will ask Drs. Hickey and Levy to comment on the studies he has referred to.

He is correct in saying that "in the few studies..." - meaning that vitamins C and E have hardly been studied by corporate medicine for their effect on heart disease, (compared to over 400 studies for Lipitor alone, according to their TV advertising).

I trust we will find out that the amounts used were miniscule, meaning that the placebo group was likely to get as much or more from foods.

But this is generally the attitude of ignorant modern medicine. No interest what-so-ever in something so logical an safe. They don't study it and really have only an interest in debunking it.

[phughes]

However, Niaspan is sort of a time release niacin and I remember reading about possible side effects of liver damage with this particular form necessitating liver monitoring.

According to the late Abram Hoffer, Niacin is a lot safer than people realize.

"Niacin is not liver toxic. Niacin therapy increases liver function tests. But this elevation means that the liver is active. It does not indicate an underlying liver pathology."

"There have been no deaths ever from niacin. The LD 50 (the dosage that would kill half of those taking it) for dogs is 6,000 milligrams per kilogram body weight. That is equivalent to half a pound of niacin per day for a human. No human takes 225,000 milligrams of niacin a day. They would be nauseous long before reaching a harmful dose."

[bclark]

drmintz.blogspot.com

Here is the blog site for Dr. Mintz.

[ofonorow]

He says there are "references" there? That is what I am hoping will be found/provided.

[Dolev]

The time-release Niaspan may cause problems, but it's not regular niacin. The typical "non-flush" niacin is 6 niacin molecules bound to inositol. That slows the release and minimizes the flush, without losing the cholesterol-lowering properties, as happens with niacinamide. It is as safe as niacin itself.

I don't know how they made the Niaspan into time-release; the product only says it is niacin.

[bclark]

Owen, Here is the link I got back from Dr. Mintz

Try this link
Which Vitamin Should I Take?


Matthew Mintz, MD, FACP
Associate Professor of Medicine
Director, Primary Care Clerkship
George Washington University School of Medicine
Washington, DC
202- 741-2194 (voice mail)
202- 741-2222 for appointments, prescription refills, after hours and urgent matters

[ofonorow]

?? Opps ?? link seems to be missing