I like the idea of a "misery index". Before I quit taking statins I weighed the pros and cons based on my very limited knowledge at the time. My side effects were so bad that a fatal heart attack was the preferable outcome. Now after being off statins for 18 months and reasonable success in the treatment of muscles, tendons and nerves, life is now worth living.
I looked up "misery index" and there does seem to be one for economic issues. I'm sure someone, somewhere will formalize such a thing. Since getting off statins I've gone from being barely able to function to enjoying life again also. But we must remember "statins don't cause that" according to my (ex) doctor.
@@janlange3839 i wonder why your comments get deleted. The youtube algorithm is a great mystery. There must be some keywords that it misunderstands. It has happened to me from time to time when I try leaving a comment on another channel.
@@mystatinfreelife I tried replying here and that one just got deleted as well. It was really innocuous so I have no idea what the trigger there might be.
Yes, I'm so tired of being censored for even simple non-critical comments that I rarely make posts anymore on Utube. I prefer X where I have freedom of speech.
Hashimoto’s/hypothyroidism and high LDL: my primary put me on a low dose statin. Didn’t care for it. However myLDL is also tied to my thyroid levels which depending on function affects the other. I’m not a diabetic but the statins may also affect my glucose levels hence the other reason I stopped taking it. What are your thoughts
Could they please aim for improvement and stop ignoring serious side effects. Instead of improvements it can lead to decline. Doctor oath “Do no harm” interesting history on this oath.
To me it is humorous that the first doctor submitting a reaction wants to go back to the Framingham model. Is he really serious or just ignorant of the original Framingham research on which the risk model was based? Back then the Total Cholesterol target was = or < 300 mg/dl. Despite being enamored by Framingham, I doubt that the doctors wants to go back to the original cholesterol thresholds despite the fact that those thresholds align much better with the large scale population research correlating cholesterol levels and all cause mortality.
It is arguable that LDL is not even a good indicator of CVD risk. LDL is clearly not causative. I've used a variety of 'risk' calculators and the worst ones ask if you ever eat meat, then drop your score if you say Yes. I have always had high LDL. My doctor suggested a statin. I got a CAC done (scored zero), a CIMT (within normal range), ankle-brachial index (within normal range), and a lipid particle test (pattern A). Because I was 55 years old at the time, my doctor said there was no reason to put me on a statin. If high LDL was likely to have been causal of CVD for me, it would have been somewhat likely I would have had at least some indication of atherosclerosis. I do understand that doesn't mean there are not soft plaques, but that's caused by inflammation, not by LDL.
@trail.blazer similar to me on many points (pattern A for example.) If your CIMT is good, that's the real good news. Notice that not one of the risk calculators asks about triglycerides. That's a little disconcerting. And of course the automatic bias against meat is another red flag that you're dealing with ideology.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I like the idea of a "misery index". Before I quit taking statins I weighed the pros and cons based on my very limited knowledge at the time. My side effects were so bad that a fatal heart attack was the preferable outcome. Now after being off statins for 18 months and reasonable success in the treatment of muscles, tendons and nerves, life is now worth living.
I looked up "misery index" and there does seem to be one for economic issues. I'm sure someone, somewhere will formalize such a thing. Since getting off statins I've gone from being barely able to function to enjoying life again also. But we must remember "statins don't cause that" according to my (ex) doctor.
Excellent analysis. Thankyou.
Thanks Russ for the video. I liked the second and third doctors. Great video!!!
@leonfuerst4790 Me too. It was refreshing to see that they do exist.
Thank you!
Everytime in the history, it took quite a bit time to swallow the bitter pill of truth, especially if you are the king of many hill.
Well done. I have tried twice to leave comments and they keep being deleted.
@@janlange3839 i wonder why your comments get deleted. The youtube algorithm is a great mystery. There must be some keywords that it misunderstands. It has happened to me from time to time when I try leaving a comment on another channel.
@@mystatinfreelife My comment previously had to do with the most recent video on a YT channel called y.o.r.k..c.a.r.d.i.o.l.o.g.y
@@mystatinfreelife I tried replying here and that one just got deleted as well. It was really innocuous so I have no idea what the trigger there might be.
Yes, I'm so tired of being censored for even simple non-critical comments that I rarely make posts anymore on Utube. I prefer X where I have freedom of speech.
Hashimoto’s/hypothyroidism and high LDL: my primary put me on a low dose statin. Didn’t care for it. However myLDL is also tied to my thyroid levels which depending on function affects the other. I’m not a diabetic but the statins may also affect my glucose levels hence the other reason I stopped taking it. What are your thoughts
I believe statins are contraindicated for hypothyroidism: ruclips.net/video/5KiXxtFVrBw/видео.html
@@mystatinfreelife Thank you.
Could they please aim for improvement and stop ignoring serious side effects. Instead of improvements it can lead to decline. Doctor oath “Do no harm” interesting history on this oath.
I hope the tide is turning,but I'm not holding my breath.
To me it is humorous that the first doctor submitting a reaction wants to go back to the Framingham model. Is he really serious or just ignorant of the original Framingham research on which the risk model was based? Back then the Total Cholesterol target was = or < 300 mg/dl. Despite being enamored by Framingham, I doubt that the doctors wants to go back to the original cholesterol thresholds despite the fact that those thresholds align much better with the large scale population research correlating cholesterol levels and all cause mortality.
It is arguable that LDL is not even a good indicator of CVD risk. LDL is clearly not causative. I've used a variety of 'risk' calculators and the worst ones ask if you ever eat meat, then drop your score if you say Yes.
I have always had high LDL. My doctor suggested a statin. I got a CAC done (scored zero), a CIMT (within normal range), ankle-brachial index (within normal range), and a lipid particle test (pattern A). Because I was 55 years old at the time, my doctor said there was no reason to put me on a statin.
If high LDL was likely to have been causal of CVD for me, it would have been somewhat likely I would have had at least some indication of atherosclerosis. I do understand that doesn't mean there are not soft plaques, but that's caused by inflammation, not by LDL.
@trail.blazer similar to me on many points (pattern A for example.) If your CIMT is good, that's the real good news. Notice that not one of the risk calculators asks about triglycerides. That's a little disconcerting. And of course the automatic bias against meat is another red flag that you're dealing with ideology.