I must say that this is a dumb question and hardly worth a response.
Why you would react so negatively is another clue to why you may be suffering heart disease
--ofonorow Feb 08 2011
I hope that your negative responses do not lead to premature heart disease!!
The question was posed several times, you chose to ignore it until rephrased where you could not ignore it.
No point in going sinker here its just a discussion, and you should address all question whether "dumb" or not!.
Fact is you would do any thing to protect you and yours as I would, makes no difference in the methodology of getting there as long as the end result is success. Its insignificant whether the cure comes out of a orange or of of a grain of rice!
I have no idea whether I will do any better taking statins or not. Nothing is static and as you said its a on going experiment. The logic of lowering the cholesterol in the blood impeding plaque build up is flawed by the fact that many people with low cholesterol still have MI. But does having the low cholesterol number extend the time that it takes the plaque to deposit a 70% blockage? If statins impede the inflammation as you stated and the tests prove it does, perhaps that may help in my case as the VC is does not appear to be successfully accomplishing that particular task. If the inflammation is the culprit?? My CRP is is way below thresholds defined by the "medical establishment" that you do not trust are the test results viable?.
Statins have been shown to stabilize plaque, in my case we know my plaque is not stable so if using statins stabilizes plaque, reduces inflammation, and VC will dissolve plaque at a molecular level as you state then I'm just leverage myself three fold by succumbing to big pharmacy's facade and using the VC as a kicker. If is not inflammation, what else could it be?, Iron toxicity? I'm addressing that as we verbally joust! Maybe its just my body reacting to stress in my everyday life and inability to cope with it. I may succumb never knowing.
One thing I find ironic in all of what I read, is it appears lowering cholesterol by diet the "natural method" i.e Bushy post is condoned but lowering it with statins is a no no. The final result is the same, less serum cholesterol!. That does not mean that Bush will not have a MI 2.5 years from now, as we know lower numbers may not prevent MI. It may mean that he may not have one 2.5 years from now due to the extended time period for the plaque to form (lower numbers if hypothetically viable). This extension may lead him to find the cause of inflammation if he has it, or find the alternate cause of CVD if he has it and remedy both. In the end does it really matter how one extends his or her mortality, is there a spot reserved for the deceased that use statins?
All powers to be here indicate its not the cholesterol numbers but we all seem to revert back to that line of thinking time and again even you. If its not cholesterol numbers then whether one taking statins should not even be in the discussion, as you say "moot". If that's the case then its down to the various other variables which are discuses and "Cholesterol" should be banned from the board.
As Bill O'Reilly says "I'll give you the last word" its your board and this horse has been beat to death!
Side bar: Completed my 6 month Stress Test/ EKG yesterday. Went the full duration on the tread mill. Doc says he did not see any muscle damage in the ultrasound scans taken of the walls of the heart from the 02/02/2011 MI. Heart does not appear to be reforming.
life is good!