# Good Health for Seniors



## MoonRiver

A couple of articles I read recently got me thinking about being healthy as a senior. Do we know what it takes to be healthy and vibrant into our 70's, 80's, and even 90's. 

The first was about genetics. As a species, our objective is to survive and have offspring, and then to stay alive long enough for the offspring to be able to survive on their own. Alone among mammals, we even have a role for grandmothers, which probably started out as root digger.

But were we built to live past 40? We know our bodies start to break down. We know we will die. We hope to die in our sleep, knowing that we will more likely die from heart disease, Alzheimer's, or some other debilitating disease.

I have read a few scientists that say their goal is too live long and die fast. Shouldn't that be the goal your doctor has for you? Shouldn't their goal be to help you avoid these diseases in your old age?

The other article was about our nutritional needs including vitamins and minerals as we age. Does anyone in the medical community really know the nutritional requirements of a 70 year old? They are certainly different from a 20 year old or a 40 year old or, for that matter, from a 60 year old. Has your doctor ever offered you nutritional counseling that was age specific?

Did you know that calorie restriction may be one of the best things you can do, even if you are not overweight? 

What are you doing to stay active and healthy?


----------



## Clem

I'm not worrying about getting old, that's for sure. However, whenever I do get old, I won't worry about it then, either. I'll just be glad I lived long enough to get old. I am aware that my health may be something of an anomaly, but I see people older than me every time I go out. Most of them look to be in pretty good shape. I imagine there may be a lot of people who aren't healthy enough to get out, though.

So, to discuss the ones left out of the "most of them" group in the above paragraph. I know it sounds like harping on a subject, and I'm sorry. But this cannot be said loud enough, or enough times.

*If you want to be healthy when you get old*, *don't be fat*.
I can't tell you the exact numbers nationwide, because I only go to a very few places. however, electric wheelchairs for people in their 50's who weigh 500 pounds. 400 pound people toddling across the farmer's market midway, looking desperately for something to lean on. It's just extremely unhealthy, has got to be emotionally, as well as physically tiring. And there's no big secret. Consume less calories than you burn.


----------



## ladytoysdream

I have my chickens and rabbits to take care of. So that helps physically and mentally.

I don't smoke, or drink. And I take no medicine. Only rarely if I get hurt, and that
was 2 spider bites last year, for example.
I do though, like soda but try to keep the stuff out of the house. And some treats.
Again, the less in the house, the better off I am.
Last time, I saw the doctor, she said, I don't know what you are doing, but keep it up


----------



## MoonRiver

I was talking to a guy yesterday and he was almost in tears. Has had a cough for years, yet doctors just recently discovered it is a very serious lung disease. I got the impression he was told to go home and sit on the couch until he dies. Medication is not covered by Medicare. He's hoping VA will help, but we know that's a steep hill to climb.

Health care, meaning disease prevention, for seniors sucks. And just so you know, very few, if any, people are fat on purpose. If not being fat was as easy as you seem to believe, why would someone choose to have to use a wheelchair to get around when they could just follow your advice?


----------



## Clem

I lost 104 pounds. I know what I'm talking about. And I didn't get fat on purpose, either. But I did get skinny on purpose.


----------



## Tobster

I believe you will find the book, "Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End" by Atul Gawande a very interesting read if you have questions about dying and ageing in the modern world. 

There are fewer and fewer doctors who specialize in the care of the elderly and even fewer with the experience to approach it in a practical and useful manner.

On the subject of vitamins. It is far more important for an elderly person to consume enough calories than it is take a vitamin. Weight loss is big problem for many. Also, someone in their in 80s is far more likely to die from a fall and the complications that lead to a steady decline than they are to die from cancer or heart disease. 

Gawande a surgeon, decided to explore how his profession deals with terminally ill and the elderly when his father's health began to decline, what he found makes for a fascinating book.


----------



## MoonRiver

Clem said:


> I lost 104 pounds. I know what I'm talking about.


No, you know what worked for you. I bet it wouldn't work for me.

I tried to lose weight for years. In fact, for the last 18 years it has been my full time job. It wasn't until a couple of years ago when I had gene analysis done and found research tools to analyze it did I start to figure it out. I can't eat more than a minimum amount of saturated fat. The harder I tried on a ketogenic or paleo diet, the sicker I got. Doctor after doctor couldn't figure it out.

I spent literally hundreds of hours doing research and found a sentence here and a sentence there until I had most of the puzzle put together. I remember the look on my doctor's face when I explained what I had discovered and what my plan was. I asked her to run about 30 lab tests so we could establish a baseline to see how well my plan worked.

She was very encouraging and said what I had discovered might help with a couple other patients. I have finally been able to lose 90 lbs and get off 2 of the BP meds and reduce the final one by 1/3. 

That's another story. I had BP spikes that seemed to happen for no apparent reason. Even when I told cardiologists and other MDs that I thought I had some type of reaction to saturated fat, they just kept prescribing more meds and larger doses. I told them the meds did nothing to stop the spikes and their answer was to prescribe more drugs. Now, as long as I stay on a very low saturated fat diet, no more spikes. A couple of days ago, I made the mistake of having pizza for the 1st time in at least a year and within a few hours had a huge BP spike. At least I now know that as long as I immediately stop the saturated fat, BP will be back to normal the next day, and it was.

Why did I bring up BP? Because go to almost any diet website or read the latest diet books and the majority push saturated fat as heart healthy and needed for good health. As much as I love a good steak or a bowl of ice cream, I am now very close to being a vegetarian, which seems the only way to eat healthy while minimizing saturated fat. So again, your diet advice wouldn't have worked for me and a lot of other people.


----------



## MoonRiver

Tobster said:


> I believe you will find the book, "Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End" by Atul Gawande a very interesting read if you have questions about dying and ageing in the modern world.
> 
> There are fewer and fewer doctors who specialize in the care of the elderly and even fewer with the experience to approach it in a practical and useful manner.
> 
> On the subject of vitamins. It is far more important for an elderly person to consume enough calories than it is take a vitamin. Weight loss is big problem for many. Also, someone in their in 80s is far more likely to die from a fall and the complications that lead to a steady decline than they are to die from cancer or heart disease.
> 
> Gawande a surgeon, decided to explore how his profession deals with terminally ill and the elderly when his father's health began to decline, what he found makes for a fascinating book.


Thanks for the book idea.

The point of my post is that I don't think there is a good reason for weight loss being a problem or bone loss being a problem or poor mobility being a problem for most seniors. With proper nutrition supplemented as necessary, with appropriate physical activity, with stimulating mental activities, and with healthy social interactions, I think we could eliminate many frailties we associate with aging. 

Not all 80 year olds fall down and can't get up, not all get Alzheimer's, not all get cancer, not all have heart disease, not all have bone loss, etc. So how can we be one of those that remains healthy and active throughout old age.

My father was a POW in several German camps during WWII. Even though he was very physically active during his life, his body just wore out from all the abuse he suffered as a POW. That was the extreme, but we all have suffered some level of abuse to our bodies. But medical science knows much about how we can nourish our bodies to repair and recover. That's what I want to know. What can I do today to have a healthier tomorrow? It's never to late.


----------



## Micheal

I really don't think of my "health" on a daily or even weekly basis. I try to ignore those that think they have "the answer" to what one should do, not do, take, not take, eat or not eat, etc... Mainly because within a few years they are proven mostly wrong or at least questionable; think eggs.

I do discuss my health concerns with my doc during my visits. Although over the past few years I have become more assertive in saying "no" or questioning the why of their recommendations. As I told my doctor I'll tell you if something goes wrong or if I don't feel right she will be the 2nd or 3rd person to know. Besides all my doctors agree I'm in great shape for the shape I'm in.....

As to being active, etc. a lot of what I do is outside so is weather/season dependent. I made myself a promise when I retired (WOW 10 years ago this month and I didn't even celebrate it ) that I would average 2 hours of work everyday - to date I think I'm good to at least 2033........


----------



## Clem

Clem said:


> I am aware that my health may be something of an anomaly





MoonRiver said:


> No, you know what worked for you. I bet it wouldn't work for me.


 And once again, I am aware that my health may be something of an anomaly. 
I lost weight by being honest with myself. I knew(most of them are dead now) a lot of people who had all sort of reasons they couldn't lose weight. We used to go to Duff's together when they first came to Danville. Drink a lot of beer, and eat hot dogs together. As they got older, I'd go visiting. All sort of stuff in the fridge. In particular, soft drinks. I knew a woman who "didn't eat enough at meals to keep a bird alive" according to her husband. He, and she, always marveled at how she managed to be so big. One week, I was working in their house, and he was out at his job. She started with enough food for 5 or 6 meals, and when she was through cooking, 2 smallish helpings. 
Whatever. I am absolutely positive that some people have genetic conditions, and so on. But, regardless, if someone wants to be healthy when they're old, they won't do it by being morbidly obese. I know it's a sensitive subject. It was for me too. I used to say "it's in my blood" which is old-timey for "it's genetic" It wasn't in my blood. It was in my mouth, in my plate, and in my stomach. I'm sorry if that's offensive, and I know it is to some people. You're right though, I know what worked for me. Pure math. A good scale. Nutritiondata.com And desire. I started on that journey in order to lose enough weight to be a donor candidate to give my wife a kidney. 8 months and a hundred pound weight loss later, I signed the papers to take her off life support. Regardless of my efforts, an inattentive hospital worker violated hospital protocol during a "routine" colonoscopy, perforated her colon, causing E. Coli, later C. Diff, and inevitably, after months, death. However, I didn't die, I was determined to live my life to the maximum, and I didn't gain the weight back. It's been 7 years. Sure I get hungry, and crave junk. And I eat whatever I want. However, I weigh it all, mark it down, and at the end of the week, my intake and output are balanced, even if I have to go every other day on water and cabbage. Because I am in charge of what I put in my body.


----------



## Wolf mom

Boy, I remember when it was "good practice" to carry a few extra pounds. That was in the days of wasting diseases like Tuberculosis. Which is, BTW, coming back. What we eat and do is cumulative in our bodies and brains. We see the effects of poor body maintenance in "elderly" diseases like dementia and Parkinson's disease. The brain affects our bodies and our bodies affect our brains. What we eat has a direct affect on how our brains work and the hormones in our brains affect how our bodies function.

I just got finished viewing a 7 part series by Dr. Mark Hyman about Functional Medicine. Might be interesting for those who are into optimum health. Genetically, I'm programmed to live well into my late 90's (family members living over 100) so I want to be as independent, mobile and cognitively alert as possible - or not at all. So, every nudge into helping me move to living more healthily is good for me.


----------



## emdeengee

We restrict calories, sugar, salt, excess fat and meat and eat a lot of fruit and veggies. Walking is our main exercise but it is getting very difficult for me now. And of course we get a lot of sleep - at least 8 hours.

Excess weight and obesity is deadly and alcohol does no only affect health but society itself. Personally I don't care if weight is a sensitive subject. I was obese but I never lived in denial. I am amazed at how many overweight/obese people do not own a mirror and certainly do not pay attention to what their body is telling them. Or what their doctor is telling them.

Genetically my family is also long lived (well into the 80 and mid-90s even in the 19th and 20th century) but we have had losses at age 60. No one is safe from disease.


----------



## lmrose

I had a rude awaking when I had a blood test last week. I get my blood tested every six months because I have a heredity condition where my liver makes bad cholesterol. I also have a genetic pre=disposition to diabetes. Every female in my family has had it going generations back on my Dad's side. When I was little I watched my Grandma stick needles in her arm and promised I would never do that! I didn't understand diabetes but I learned as I grew older. I never knew my mother so who knows what I inherited there? 
I don't have a family doctor so I pay a VON nurse who works for a local pharmacy to do the blood tests. It is a service they provide.
I have been eating good, mostly vegetables and a little organic oats and bread I make. I was eating one boiled egg a day and a 1" cube of cheese most days. I feel good. At least I did until the blood tests results came back! My good cholesterol had come up a little which was good. But my bad cholesterol was way worse than it had been in years! I was shocked!! The only things different from six months ago was we are eating eggs bought at the store instead of from our own hens. Also I was buying cheese instead of making my own goat soft cheese. 

Nothing else has changed in our diet since being in town. An egg is only as good as a hen is fed. I have no idea where the eggs in the store were laid and what the hens ate. Lesson has been learned the hard way as I thought I could get away with it even though I knew this all along. I do know all the eggs I have bought are old. You can tell when you boil them. After cooling an old egg cracked will have the shell practically fall off! A fresh egg peels hard with the shell wanting to cling to the egg.

Cheese I love .But again it is only as good as the cow or goat was fed who produced the milk to make the cheese. So I am weaning myself away from cheese and eggs until we are back in the country and have out own again. It is hard and today I ate one egg and a piece of cheese but then felt guilty! 
I did buy fresh haddock as a substitute and which should be better for me.
We don't use salt or granulated sugar in cooking . We don't eat meat unless it is what we raised and even then I don't eat it. We do eat beans we grow.

As we age we need less food or I should say I do. Bill has a different body which runs very fast and requires a lot more calories just not to lose weight. He has no bad cholesterol and the good cholesterol he has is very good. Even though I don't eat fattening food I have to watch my weight and walk or ride a bike to lose or maintain my weight and not gain. Only by eating fish and taking fish oil have I been able to gain a little good cholesterol. The point is we are two people with the same diet and have very different bodies with different reactions. I have to work at staying healthy much harder than Bill does. He doesn't have the heredity problems I have. So sometimes as we age we get sick even when trying to stay healthy. For me I have to be very diligent and aware so not to have some disease creep up on me. Often things happen before we are aware there is a problem. It sometimes is not simple staying healthy even when you eat good. Everybody has to find out what their body's needs are and adjust their diet accordingly.


----------



## MoonRiver

lmrose said:


> I had a rude awaking when I had a blood test last week. I get my blood tested every six months because I have a heredity condition where my liver makes bad cholesterol. I also have a genetic pre=disposition to diabetes. Every female in my family has had it going generations back on my Dad's side. When I was little I watched my Grandma stick needles in her arm and promised I would never do that! I didn't understand diabetes but I learned as I grew older. I never knew my mother so who knows what I inherited there?


I watched an inspiring video yesterday that I think you might want to watch. Your story has a lot of similarities to Chef AJ's.

I can't link to it because it has a word in the title that probably is not acceptable here. It's rather long, but you can change the speed to 1.25 or even 1.5 if you want. With that warning, if you want to watch it go to youtube and search for John McDougall Chef AJ. You want the one that has fat vegan in the title.


----------



## Forcast

Take care of your teeth. Rotten teeth can cause heart problems.


----------



## geo in mi

I might lose a little weight now. Old Country Buffet sold out and closed down, so I've got no place to go and hang out with all the fat people. Other than that, I've got no sure-fire secret method to offer anyone about losing weight.

geo


----------



## Evons hubby

geo in mi said:


> I might lose a little weight now. Old Country Buffet sold out and closed down, so I've got no place to go and hang out with all the fat people. Other than that, I've got no sure-fire secret method to offer anyone about losing weight.
> 
> geo


My Yvonne rode the weight roller coaster for years.... Lose five pounds gain back six, lose ten gain fifteen... Last August she found a system that seems to be working well. She had the majority of her stomach removed! Can only eat a few bites at a time, she's lost fifty pounds so far.


----------



## lmrose

MoonRiver said:


> I watched an inspiring video yesterday that I think you might want to watch. Your story has a lot of similarities to Chef AJ's.
> 
> I can't link to it because it has a word in the title that probably is not acceptable here. It's rather long, but you can change the speed to 1.25 or even 1.5 if you want. With that warning, if you want to watch it go to youtube and search for John McDougall Chef AJ. You want the one that has fat vegan in the title.


Thanks; tomorrow I will look it up.Have a good evening. Linda


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> A couple of articles I read recently got me thinking about being healthy as a senior. Do we know what it takes to be healthy and vibrant into our 70's, 80's, and even 90's.


The advantage the baby boomers have is the ability to inexpensively test and correct critical indicators, such as cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar. There are others, but those are the major indicators. If any of those are significantly off target it could seriously impact longevity.

I have a friend who had a serious heart attack a few years ago. Turns out his cholesterol was sky high. He hadn't been to see a doctor for decades so he had no idea. Bypass surgery restored circulation, but the heart damage remains. He'll fight heart disease for the rest of his life. But if he had been taking lipitor the past 20 years it probably would be a different story. He's taking huge doses of lipitor now, but it's largely an act of closing the proberlial barn door after the horse has run off.

Blood tests can also find more subtle indicators. For example, a vitamin D deficiency can cause heart problems, but having too much can also cause heart problems. The only way to know is to be tested regularly.

Various generations had the benefit of medical advances to help them live longer. My grandparents benefitted from antibiotics, so they could survive infections that might have killed their parents. My parents benefitted from advanced surgical procedures, so they could survive heart problems that might have killed their parents. We have the benefit of blood tests and corrective medications. Taking advantage of that could make the difference in how many retirement years you'll enjoy.

Supplements help, but I'm not big on taking a handful of supplements like some people I know. We should all be taking folic acid for heart health. Taking flush-free Niacin will help boost your good cholesterol (HDL). Unless contraindicated for some reason, everyone over 30 should probably be taking baby aspirin as a blood thinner. That's about it for over-the-counter medications, unless my blood work shows a deficiency of something.

I'm retired, but the only ongoing health problem I have is seasonal allergies. I intend to keep it that way for as long as I can. I take small doses of lipitor and lisinopril to keep my numbers right where they should be.


----------



## MoonRiver

From what I have researched, statins don't do what the pharmaceutical companies claim they do.

Heart disease is a lipid disease, not a cholesterol disease. And statins have some very serious side-effects.

Statins are not what they appear to be:


> Now, a shocking study reveals that taking statin drugs can *drastically reduce your risk of surviving a heart attack*. The study, published in the journal_ Critical Care Medicine_, found that the lower a patient's cholesterol levels, the higher the risk of dying during the 30-day period following a heart attack.
> 
> The increased risk isn't nominal: "Those patients with low LDL (bad) cholesterol levels coupled with low triglyceride levels had an astounding 990 percent increased risk of dying!" says David Brownstein, holistic doctor and author of the newsletter _Dr. Brownstein's Natural Way to Health_, and author of the book "The Statin Disaster." newsmax


*



Honolulu Heart Program (2001)

Click to expand...

*


> This report, part of an ongoing study, looked at cholesterol lowering in the elderly. Researchers compared changes in cholesterol concentrations over 20 years with all-cause mortality.36 To quote: “Our data accords with previous findings of _increased_ mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually _increases_ risk of death. *Our data accords with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases risk of death.*


*



Tulane University

Click to expand...

*


> Researchers at the Tulane University School of Medicine used electron beam tomography (EBT) to measure the progression of plaque buildup in heart-attack patients taking statin drugs. EBT is a very accurate way to measure occlusion from calcium in the arteries. Contrary to expectations, the researchers discovered that *the progression of coronary artery calcium (CAC) was significantly greater in patients receiving statins compared with event-free subjects despite similar levels of LDL-lowering.* Said the researchers: “Continued expansion of CAC may indicate failure of some patients to benefit from statin therapy and an increased risk of having cardiovascular events (_Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol_, April 1, 2004).


more

My point really is to check the medical literature and see if you can find a study that shows anything more than a minimal reduction in heart attacks from taking a statin.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> My point really is to check the medical literature and see if you can find a study that shows anything more than a minimal reduction in heart attacks from taking a statin.


Your doctor understands the risks & benefits of statins. If your doctor wants you to take a statin, I would encourage you to take his advice.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Your doctor understands the risks & benefits of statins. If your doctor wants you to take a statin, I would encourage you to take his advice.


Just my opinion, but I believe most doctors have received all their continuing education from the drug companies. If they took the time to actually read the research, they wouldn't do half the things they do.


----------



## frogmammy

Interesting thing recently...a friend and his wife both in their early 60's are working(she is anyway) in South Korea. They BOTH got the flu at the same time. Since she is a civilian employee at the base, she went to a base doctor for treatment, and after seeing the doctor for a couple minutes walked away with Tamiflu.

My friend went to see a Korean doctor. The doctor gave him a physical exam, took some blood, ran some tests and told him he had the flu, then gave him a shot in the rear and three types meds to take. He was feeling better the next morning.

His wife was not.

Oh, and his doctor visit, everything included was $45. The doctor had went to medical school in the US, but apparently, once back home he reverted to be a South Koren doctor.

Mon


----------



## MoonRiver

Here's a video that explains what cholesterol test results mean. By far, the easiest to understand video about cholesterol I have seen. Takes a complicated subject and makes it very easy to understand.






Instead of doctors trying to force cholesterol down with statins, they should be trying to resolve the underlying problem, which is usually insulin resistance. That's IF your cholesterol levels are actually really a problem.


----------



## MoonRiver

frogmammy said:


> My friend went to see a Korean doctor. The doctor gave him a physical exam, took some blood, ran some tests and told him he had the flu, then gave him a shot in the rear and three types meds to take. He was feeling better the next morning.
> 
> Mon


I wonder if it was just a magnesium shot? Probably also gave him some zinc and vitamin c.


----------



## Wolf mom

Nevada said:


> Your doctor understands the risks & benefits of statins. If your doctor wants you to take a statin, I would encourage you to take his advice.


No. Nope, just ain't gonna happen. Risks outweigh the drug. He did, I declined. Made some lifestyle changes and current blood tests show I'm fine.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> Here's a video that explains what cholesterol test results mean. By far, the easiest to understand video about cholesterol I have seen. Takes a complicated subject and makes it very easy to understand.


I'm aware of the controversy. I'm willing to accept that LDL/HDL ratio is probably more important than absolute levels, and that eating avocados and olive oil is good for your health. But if you've got an LDL level of 200 or above you're headed for trouble. Note that I also suggested niacin to boost HDL, which increases overall cholesterol. I maintain that's a good idea.

Statins have nasty side effects. I know that and your doctor knows that. If side effects was the only issue then it would be better to not take it. But it's not the only issue. There is undeniable statistical and clinical evidence that statins reduce heart attacks and strokes. In 2008 data from the JUPITER Trial demonstrated a 54 percent heart attack risk reduction and a 48 percent stroke risk reduction in people at risk for heart disease who used statins as preventive medicine.

http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/2/3/279.full

The data at that link is not speculative. It demonstrates that statins can save lives and avoid illness.

This is a serious matter. It's life or death. If you can bring your cholesterol numbers under control with diet and lifestyle changes like Wolf Mom did then more power to you. But if you can't then I suggest you listen to your doctor.

I know that there's more to it than cholesterol. I've seen seemingly healthy people people (slim, eat right, exercise regularly) have heart attacks and strokes. It happens all the time. I suspect that artery damage plays a big part. But we don't have an effective way to deal with that. We DO have an effective way to maintain reasonable cholesterol levels.

There is merit to what you say, but I honestly believe that if your LDL is 200 or above that you're in danger of developing artery goo, and it's going to eventually kill you.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> I know that there's more to it than cholesterol. I've seen seemingly healthy people people (slim, eat right, exercise regularly) have heart attacks and strokes. It happens all the time. I suspect that artery damage plays a big part. But we don't have an effective way to deal with that.


After an echo a few years ago, it was discovered that I have aortic stenosis (calcified heart valve). The doctor didn't really explain why I had it, just come back in 3 years for another echo. I go back after 3 years, and aortic stenosis had gone from mild to moderate. Again, no explanation of why. I asked what I could do and was told nothing until it got worse!

So I start doing research and within minutes find that vitamin k in high doses can stop and sometimes reverse aortic stenosis. And the reason is simple. When the body has inadequate vitamin d and vitamin k, calcium tends to accumulate in the wrong place. So instead of going to the teeth and bones, it starts accumulating in your blood vessels and especially in the aortic heart valve. (Note: old people often need vitamin k to maintain strong bones).

I had been taking a high dose of vitamin d for several years and may have aggravated the problem. Vitamin d helps in calcium absorption, but vitamin k is what gets calcium to the right places. So I cut back my vitamin d a little and started high dose vitamin k.

When I went to see my regular doc and told her what I was doing, she was in complete agreement and said she had a couple of other patients on high dose vitamin k. One had stabilized his aortic stenosis and one had completely reversed it.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> In 2008 data from the JUPITER Trial demonstrated a 54 percent heart attack risk reduction and a 48 percent stroke risk reduction in people at risk for heart disease who used statins as preventive medicine.
> 
> http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/2/3/279.full
> 
> The data at that link is not speculative. It demonstrates that statins can save lives and avoid illness.


It appears it may not be that definitive.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/724339

June 29, 2010 (Chicago, Illinois) — The *JUPITER* trial is on the receiving end of an avalanche of criticism in four papers published in the June 28, 2010 issue of the _Archives of Internal Medicine_.

*Should Healthy People Take Statins? New Studies Say No*
https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/prevention/20948*
*
It's really a shame we don't have a good way of knowing which study is accurate. Everyone seems to have an agenda and it seems to not be the good health of the American (or any) people.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> I had been taking a high dose of vitamin d for several years and may have aggravated the problem. Vitamin d helps in calcium absorption, but vitamin k is what gets calcium to the right places. So I cut back my vitamin d a little and started high dose vitamin k.


Be careful with vitamin D. Too little can cause heart disease, but in the past year it's also been discovered that too much can also cause heart disease. You need to be guided by blood work.

But your aortic stenosis problem doesn't relate to cardiovascular disease, which is what we're talking about here. I don't anyone watching this tread to be confused about that.

But I'll say this; given a choice between taking a statin or daily low-dose aspirin, I suspect you'll get more protection from the aspirin. I believe that virtually everyone over 30 should be taking low-dose aspirin every day.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Be careful with vitamin D. Too little can cause heart disease, but in the past year it's also been discovered that too much can also cause heart disease. You need to be guided by blood work.


I don't know of any accepted scientific study showing too much vitamin d is a problem. Some doctors are getting their's as high as 120. I try to keep mine around 80.

I have a gene that makes it hard for me to create enough vitamin d just from sunlight. Most people in US are low anyway, unless they live in the far south or west and spend a lot of time outside without sunblock.

Just about everything I do is based on labs. I had about 30 labs done last doctor's visit.



> But your aortic stenosis problem doesn't relate to cardiovascular disease, which is what we're talking about here. I don't anyone watching this tread to be confused about that.


Well you confused me. (from webmd)

"*Aortic valve stenosis** is a narrowing of the aortic valve*. The aortic valve allows blood to flow from the heart's lower left chamber (ventricle) into the aorta and to the body. *Stenosis prevents the valve from opening properly, forcing the heart to work harder to pump blood through the valve.* This causes pressure to build up in the left ventricle and *thickens the heart muscle*.

Your heart can make up for aortic valve stenosis and the extra pressure for a long time. But at some point, it won't be able to keep up the extra effort of pumping blood through the narrowed valve. *This can lead to heart failure."*​


> But I'll say this; given a choice between taking a statin or daily low-dose aspirin, I suspect you'll get more protection from the aspirin. I believe that virtually everyone over 30 should be taking low-dose aspirin every day.


I don't. Definitely not a statin and people need to be careful about taking an aspirin. For some it is OK but others should not take.

This is just the 1st article from a search. (from wsj)

*"Aspirin* acts as a blood thinner, which is believed to account for much of its benefit of protecting against heart attacks and strokes. But that same action, along with a tendency to deplete the stomach's protective lining, can lead to a *danger* of gastrointestinal bleeding and possibly bleeding in the brain."​One can get the benefits of thinner blood by grounding (making contact with earth) without the side effects of aspirin.

What I am really getting at is for many drugs, there are much safer ways of treating disease. Some drugs can put a disease into remission, but do any drugs cure disease?

If as seniors we rely on drugs, we will not only suffer the effects of aging, but the side effects of the drugs. I prefer to remain as healthy and vibrant as possible, and that tells me that diet and nature are key, not drugs. If I am ever in a situation where drugs are the best or only choice, I'll take them, but I am going to do my best to not need them.

A good example is Alzheimer drugs. There is not a single drug that cures Alzheimer's, while countless doctors have slowed and even reversed Alzheimer's through diet, exercise, and supplements. 

Alzheimer's appears to be a cascade disease, meaning a person has several separate diseases (primarily metabolic) which together cause what we know as Alzheimer's. It creates an energy shortage. The body does not have enough energy to run everything, so it starts shutting down different functions until eventually it starts shutting down brain functions. By treating the separate diseases, energy levels can be restored.


----------



## frogmammy

Would be nice if we didn't have so many "studies" with so many "proofs". And here I had read that statins did not limit occurrence of heart attack/stroke, nor did they decrease severity, but they DID increase survivability. However since the medical profession equates just breathing with living, I'm NOT sure that's a positive!

Mon


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> I don't know of any accepted scientific study showing too much vitamin d is a problem.


It's a fairly new study released last summer.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2632494

Too much vitamin D manifests itself as a calcium problem.

_“Excessive intake of vitamin D can, however, be harmful, as it can cause overabsorption of calcium,” Lutsey said by email. “Excess blood calcium can, in turn, lead to detrimental deposition of calcium in soft tissues, such as the heart and kidneys.”_
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-h...icans-taking-too-much-vitamin-d-idUKKBN19B2F0

Sounds like the problem you've been having.


----------



## Nevada

frogmammy said:


> Would be nice if we didn't have so many "studies" with so many "proofs".


LOL

Yes, science is like that. Believe it or not, I saw the same thing in refinery engineering. You have to learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Your doctor can help you sort it out.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> It's a fairly new study released last summer.
> 
> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2632494
> 
> Too much vitamin D manifests itself as a calcium problem.
> 
> _“Excessive intake of vitamin D can, however, be harmful, as it can cause overabsorption of calcium,” Lutsey said by email. “Excess blood calcium can, in turn, lead to detrimental deposition of calcium in soft tissues, such as the heart and kidneys.”_
> https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-h...icans-taking-too-much-vitamin-d-idUKKBN19B2F0


A couple of things. Some of the earlier studies used cod liver oil as source of vitamin d. Cod liver oil has vitamin a, which is believed to possibly have caused the problems, not vitamin d.

The other is a person probably should avoid calcium when taking a vitamin d supplement. Vitamin d frees up stored calcium, so taking vitamin d and calcium can lead to too much calcium which causes the noted problem. I even noticed one of the references they used said the people in the study were taking both vitamin d and calcium.

Another case where your doctor should be running labs for vitamin a, vitamin d, calcium, and others before prescribing supplements. I've had to learn how to do this for myself, as so few doctors have taken the time to do the research. Unfortunately, the same is true for many researchers. They just note results and are often wrong in interpreting them.

Fortunately, there is a crew of doctors and researchers who are analyzing these studies and writing rebuttals and clarifying results and causes. Youtube and other social media provides them a source of revenue where they can spend more time on research and are not driven solely by patient revenue.


----------



## lmrose

MoonRiver said:


> I don't know of any accepted scientific study showing too much vitamin d is a problem. Some doctors are getting their's as high as 120. I try to keep mine around 80.
> 
> I have a gene that makes it hard for me to create enough vitamin d just from sunlight. Most people in US are low anyway, unless they live in the far south or west and spend a lot of time outside without sunblock.
> 
> Just about everything I do is based on labs. I had about 30 labs done last doctor's visit.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you confused me. (from webmd)
> 
> "*Aortic valve stenosis** is a narrowing of the aortic valve*. The aortic valve allows blood to flow from the heart's lower left chamber (ventricle) into the aorta and to the body. *Stenosis prevents the valve from opening properly, forcing the heart to work harder to pump blood through the valve.* This causes pressure to build up in the left ventricle and *thickens the heart muscle*.
> 
> Your heart can make up for aortic valve stenosis and the extra pressure for a long time. But at some point, it won't be able to keep up the extra effort of pumping blood through the narrowed valve. *This can lead to heart failure."*​
> 
> I don't. Definitely not a statin and people need to be careful about taking an aspirin. For some it is OK but others should not take.
> 
> This is just the 1st article from a search. (from wsj)
> 
> *"Aspirin* acts as a blood thinner, which is believed to account for much of its benefit of protecting against heart attacks and strokes. But that same action, along with a tendency to deplete the stomach's protective lining, can lead to a *danger* of gastrointestinal bleeding and possibly bleeding in the brain."​One can get the benefits of thinner blood by grounding (making contact with earth) without the side effects of aspirin.
> 
> What I am really getting at is for many drugs, there are much safer ways of treating disease. Some drugs can put a disease into remission, but do any drugs cure disease?
> 
> If as seniors we rely on drugs, we will not only suffer the effects of aging, but the side effects of the drugs. I prefer to remain as healthy and vibrant as possible, and that tells me that diet and nature are key, not drugs. If I am ever in a situation where drugs are the best or only choice, I'll take them, but I am going to do my best to not need them.
> 
> A good example is Alzheimer drugs. There is not a single drug that cures Alzheimer's, while countless doctors have slowed and even reversed Alzheimer's through diet, exercise, and supplements.
> 
> Alzheimer's appears to be a cascade disease, meaning a person has several separate diseases (primarily metabolic) which together cause what we know as Alzheimer's. It creates an energy shortage. The body does not have enough energy to run everything, so it starts shutting down different functions until eventually it starts shutting down brain functions. By treating the separate diseases, energy levels can be restored.


Very interesting read. I believe in taking the least medicine possible which right now for me is none. But I have to be extremely careful how I eat and have blood tests done every six months as I have some heredity issues that can ruin my health if I am not diligent taking care of myself. Some health issues can sneak up and get you sick before you know your sick.Thank you for posting this.


----------



## Micheal

The discussion going on seems about the same caliber as most all the quoted studies. For every pro there is a con..... and the debate will go on.


----------



## Nevada

Micheal said:


> The discussion going on seems about the same caliber as most all the quoted studies. For every pro there is a con..... and the debate will go on.


The problem with that is that this is a serious topic. We all have friends and family who will die before their time from heart attacks and strokes. Common medical wisdom says there are things we can do to to prevent that. Taking the wrong side of this dispute isn't going to protect anyone from cardiovascular disease.


----------



## Micheal

Nevada I fully agree with you that "common medical wisdom says there are things we can do to prevent that." The problem is the person has to decide for him/her self on what they want to do to or put into his/her own body.

Me, I've been on satins for many, many years, 3 years ago I had to have 3 stents put in. When I started taking the satins I was told that "oh, they'll keep your veins, etc clear and you'll be trouble free." To me that doc lied maybe because he was going by the latest info he had at that time; don't know.
All I know now is I question everything my heart specialist (different one than before) and others in the med field say, want me to try, or test(s) they'd like me to have...... but that's me and how I feel now!


----------



## Nevada

You can accept or refuse any test, procedure, or medication you want, but it won't change the underlying science. When it comes to medical technology we can't both be right. Some of us will live longer than others. Taking advice from our doctors will have a direct influence on that.

You have to admit that your cardiologist gives you very practical advice about staying alive. Reject that advice at your own peril.


----------



## MoonRiver

May I offer this video in rebuttal. Dr. Stephanie Seneff is a well respected researcher at MIT. I picked this particular video because it is short and specifically addresses statins. There are many more interviews with Dr Seneff on youtube.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> May I offer this video in rebuttal. Dr. Stephanie Seneff is a well respected researcher at MIT. I picked this particular video because it is short and specifically addresses statins. There are many more interviews with Dr Seneff on youtube.


Either way, she's still talking about reducing LDL cholesterol to prevent cardiovascular disease. She just advocates lowering it with sulfate supplements instead of statins. But can a person with an LDL of over 200 lower cholesterol to a safe level with sulfate supplements?


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Either way, she's still talking about reducing LDL cholesterol to prevent cardiovascular disease. She just advocates lowering it with sulfate supplements instead of statins. But can a person with an LDL of over 200 lower cholesterol to a safe level with sulfate supplements?


I don't think that's what she said, but I understand you believe statins are helpful. I believe she has said that the one time statins are appropriate is for a genetic disease that causes high cholesterol.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> I don't think that's what she said, but I understand you believe statins are helpful. I believe she has said that the one time statins are appropriate is for a genetic disease that causes high cholesterol.


Her point was that rather than inhibit the production of LDL by slowing the processes of the liver with statins, that sulfate supplements can prevent LDL from building up in the blood.


----------



## MoonRiver

"John Ioannidis is one of the world's foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have repeatedly shown that many of the conclusions biomedical researchers arrive at in their published studies are exaggerated or flat-out wrong. Yet this is the “science-based evidence” doctors use to prescribe drugs or recommend surgery. According to Ioannidis’ findings, *as much as 90 percent of the published medical information relied on by doctors is flawed or incorrect*.9"

"An investigation13 by the Mayo Clinic published in 2013 proved this point. To determine the overall effectiveness of medical care, researchers tracked the frequency of medical reversals over the past decade. Not only did they find that *reversals are common across all classes of medical practice, but they too confirmed that a significant proportion of medical treatments offer no patient benefit." *

"Overtesting and overtreatment are also part of the problem. Instead of dissuading patients from unnecessary or questionable interventions, the system rewards waste and incentivizes disease over health. According to a 2012 report by the Institute of Medicine, *an estimated 30 percent of all medical procedures, tests and medications may in fact be unnecessary*, 22 at a cost of at least $750 billion a year."

Read more​


----------



## Nevada

I used to have a friend and coworker (a geotechnical engineer) who died about 10 years ago. He was 75 and had a previous heart attack, but he wasn't left an invalid. Evidently the MI wasn't large enough for him to have CHF to any great extent. He was living a pretty normal life. He was taking medication for blood pressure, cholesterol, and of course low dose aspirin (he took 2 a day).

A friend suggested to him that he didn't need those medications, and that he would be a lot healthier if he just threw them all away. He did. Within a few months he had a stroke, and then had another MI while recovering in the hospital. He got to go home, but died about 3 weeks after being released from the rehab facility.

His doctor told me that he might have gotten away with stopping the prescription meds, but that stopping the aspirin is probably what probably got him.

Today we don't need friends to give us bogus advice like that because we have Dr. Oz. The general theme is that:

1) Doctors don't really know how to treat disease.
2) The medications doctors prescribe do more harm than good.
3) If you eat right and take the right supplements you won't need a doctor or prescription meds.






He has a huge following, probably larger than any other individual doctor in the world. When called to task Dr. Oz has said that his show is entertainment, yet his followers take him deadly serious.

But let's not lose sight if the fact that doctors are people who have devoted their lives to treating illness. You aren't doing anyone a favor by eroding their confidence in the medical profession.

I like to do my own research, but I still recognize that doctors are experts. When I read about something that I think might benefit my health I usually run it past my doctor before trying it.


----------



## emdeengee

Over the decades we have also been conned by changes in what is considered by the medical profession to be normal. Included in this was the change in what was considered as acceptable as healthy cholesterol levels and the moving of the scale on weight. Some of the changes had to do with medical research, some had to do with pharmaceutical companies pushing for these changes so that they could sell more drugs which the doctors pushed for them and some had to do with Insurance companies looking for ways to raise rates or disqualify people.


----------



## MoonRiver

Somehow duplicate posts were made. See next post.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> I used to have a friend and coworker (a geotechnical engineer) who died about 10 years ago. He was 75 and had a previous heart attack, but he wasn't left an invalid. Evidently the MI wasn't large enough for him to have CHF to any great extent. He was living a pretty normal life. He was taking medication for blood pressure, cholesterol, and of course low dose aspirin (he took 2 a day).
> 
> A friend suggested to him that he didn't need those medications, and that he would be a lot healthier if he just threw them all away. He did. Within a few months he had a stroke, and then had another MI while recovering in the hospital. He got to go home, but died about 3 weeks after being released from the rehab facility.


No one here has suggested that anyone should simply stop taking prescribed drugs.

What I have tried to express, is that there are often alternate strategies that may work as well as or better than drugs, that are less harmful to one's health. The saying goes _"Live a long and healthy life and die in our sleep"_. 

I belong to a high blood pressure forum and it is near criminal the way doctors prescribe BP meds. A recent example was a doctor, who on the patient's 1st visit, prescribed BP med after a single reading of 140/90. And the med prescribed was one with serious side effects. No discussion of exercise, weight loss, change in diet, supplements, meds with fewer side effects. No 2nd or 3rd BP measurement. No come back in a week and have my nurse test your bp again before I prescribe anything.

I've run into this over and over, and cardiologists seem to be the worse, going so far as to denying I could reduce cholesterol by changing my diet. I had a Internal Medicine doctor tell me I should have bariatric surgery, because I would never lose weight. Of course I have lost 90 lbs since then without surgery.

Or how about the doctor that prescribed phen phen. Or another doctor that prescribed vioxx? Fortunately I quit both after 2 days because of the side effects.

The majority of doctors have become pill pushers. I was talking with my doctor and said that I couldn't be a doctor because I would spend all my time researching trying to find a way to help patients cure their disease. I couldn't imagine seeing 20 patients a day because I couldn't help all of them get better.

She said she felt like that at first, but to survive as a doctor, you had to turn it off when you left the office. Then I understood why she never had a new plan for me, even when the old plan didn't work. That's when I realized the only way I would get better was if I did the research myself. It's a shame, but that's how it is.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> No one here has suggested that anyone should simply stop taking prescribed drugs.


Statins are prescribed drugs.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> It's a fairly new study released last summer.
> 
> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2632494
> 
> Too much vitamin D manifests itself as a calcium problem.
> 
> _“Excessive intake of vitamin D can, however, be harmful, as it can cause overabsorption of calcium,” Lutsey said by email. “Excess blood calcium can, in turn, lead to detrimental deposition of calcium in soft tissues, such as the heart and kidneys.”_
> https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-h...icans-taking-too-much-vitamin-d-idUKKBN19B2F0
> 
> Sounds like the problem you've been having.


In case I failed to mention it in a prior post, I may have added to a hereditary heart problem (bicuspid aortic valve) by taking a high dose of vitamin d without the corresponding level of vitamin k. Dr Kate Rheaume-Bleue is an expert on vitamin k and explains the benefits in this video. She does a good job of explaining the MK4 and MK7 types of vitamin K2.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Statins are prescribed drugs.


I question why a doctor would prescribe a statin, especially without explaining the serious side effects and questionable benefit, but I never told anyone to stop taking a statin. I believe the negatives far outweigh the benefits, but that's for every person to decide for themselves.


----------



## motdaugrnds

Interesting read...also quite boring in that there are so many contradictions in the professional field as related to this topic...as with many topics. Oh dear, not that any of you are boring. I'm speaking of the "research" professionals refer to for what they prescribe.

Personally (and being up in years) I've learned how my body responds to various situations, including my food intake. This knowledge of self by passes anything a doctor can tell me; and I've learned to assess what I'm told by how my body reacts. (Did this with my mother too and was told a very strange thing by her doctor, i.e. "I don't know what you're doing, but keep it up. She is in better condition now than she was when she first came to see me." ??? Huh??? Is she not suppose to be??? was my "unsaid" response. I did not tell him I had stopped that nebulizer after a very short period of use because of the way her breathing was. Discovered later this same doctor was....oh dear don't even want to think about it. Suffice it to say he apparently was keeping his income up by the way he was treating his patients.) 

At any rate, watching what I put into my stomach and when has kept me off Rx meds for years; and though I do suffer from osteoarthritis and the typical old age dilemmas I'm pretty xxx healthy! As for as weight is concerned, I'm one of the fortunate ones in that I can eat a large meal every 2 hrs and never gain weight. Of course what I eat gets the credit.  My major concern is dehydration as no matter how much liquid I keep putting into myself, this continues to be a problem and I have no idea how to resolve it...


----------



## anniew

As we all know, research tends to vacillate between pro and con...
Added to that is the well-known idea that half of doctors were in the lower half of their medical school class, and many make mistakes, intentional or not. They are all human and all humans make mistakes. Many deaths are connected with medical mistakes. Also, the older doctors are mostly relying on information they got back when they were in school/residence/etc. so maybe a younger doctor has more up to date information....but still may have been in the lower half of his/her class ranking.
Also, testimonials are just that. They may have some value, but they also are largely dependent on the individuals unique body/chemical makeup which accounts for a lot of variation in how they respond to medicine, diet, exercise, etc. Does a doctor go into individual information enough to come up with a good diagnosis/recommendation, or does he/she just write out a prescription?
Each person needs to decide for him/herself what is best based on their own ideas, research, doctor recommendations, but not by what friends, neighbors, forum members have prescribed...their ideas are something perhaps to consider but it is still an individual decision based on as much information as can be obtained. Some just blindly go with whatever is recommended...good luck with that.


----------



## Nevada

anniew said:


> As we all know, research tends to vacillate between pro and con...
> Added to that is the well-known idea that half of doctors were in the lower half of their medical school class, and many make mistakes, intentional or not. They are all human and all humans make mistakes. Many deaths are connected with medical mistakes.


I've left this alone for almost 2 weeks, but I wouldn't want anyone around here to be swayed by those ideas. In essescence, the message is:

1. Medical science is flawed, and things that doctors are bad for us today might be considered good for us tomorrow.
2. Half the doctors out there are incompetent and might screw-up and kill you.

So who do we depend on for help in life or death situations that will surely arise in all of our lives. Should we take the advice of dietary supplement vendors over doctors? Maybe visit a GNC store rather than a cardiologist for followup visits after a heart attack? Surely you see the absurdity of those suggestions.

Medical science evolves, but that's not to say that the basic observations and conclusions of medical researchers is somehow tentative and likely to change. Throughout my life the medical community has consistently believed that high blood pressure, high blood sugar, and high cholesterol are all bad for you, and they they've all agreed about which problems those things aggravate. If you're thinking that doctors might change their minds about those things and tell you that sky high cholesterol is good for you then I think that's not going to happen.

What medical researchers usually find is that things aren't as simple as they thought at first. For example they didn't always know about the connection between artery plaque and fire-grilled meat. They have also changed their minds about what levels of blood pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol we should be shooting for. But again, the basic idea that high levels of those things are bad for you has not changed.

I don't consider doctors to be gods, but I appreciate them for the scientists that they are. Besides, we have nobody but doctors to turn to in a life or death crisis.

That said, I believe that supplements are important. My doctor has asked me to take a variety of supplements, and I take them every day. In fact if your cholesterol problem isn't too serious you might find that taking 1000mg of flush-free niacin will get your numbers where they need to be without a statin. It's no joke, niacin will lower your LDL, increase your HDL, and your doctor might be pleased with both your LDL/HDL ratio and your HDL+LDL total. But niacin can only take you so far. You may still need a statin to get where your doctor wants you to be. But if taking niacin allows you to take a lower dose statin then that's still a good thing.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO

You may try dropping out carbs, too.


----------



## Wolf mom

Not every Dr. graduated top of his class....we seem to forget that. We need to be our own advocates. Sometimes we need to push to get answers/results - not just accept what they want us to do, which in most cases is to take some more pills.


----------



## Nevada

Wolf mom said:


> Not every Dr. graduated top of his class....we seem to forget that.


What do you hope to accomplish by eroding people's faith in medicine? Maybe that's what we should be talking about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> What do you hope to accomplish by eroding people's faith in medicine?


Lot's of people have no "faith" in conventional medicine.
Medical mistakes kill more people than guns each year.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> May I offer this video in rebuttal. Dr. *Stephanie Seneff* is a well respected researcher at MIT.


She's an anti-GMO activist with highly biased opinions.
She's far from "well respected" outside the anti-Monsanto crowds.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> I've run into this over and over


Only because you seem to spend lots of time going to lots of Dr's.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> What do you hope to accomplish by eroding people's faith in medicine? Maybe that's what we should be talking about.


It's not about eroding it's about being your own advocate. After my father was prescribed a med that he was allergic to and one that was not recommended for glaucoma patients, he as the doc is prescribes he checks for problems with allergic reactions and interactions. Thank goodness he had a good pharmacist that caught both mistakes. ( his allergies were in his file with the prescribing doc)


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lot's of people have no "faith" in conventional medicine.
> Medical mistakes kill more people than guns each year.


So what message would you like people to take away from that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> So what message would you like people to take away from that?


That in the end it makes little difference what you do.
You will die anyway.

No two people are identical, so there are no treatments that work for everyone, and a lot of people won't follow the Dr's instructions but will still blame them if things don't go well.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> That in the end it makes little difference what you do.
> You will die anyway.


As a medical treatment philosophy, that's ridiculous! Medicine is all about relieving suffering and and prolonging life. Anyone who doesn't believe in that should stay out of medicine.

Modern medicine has the capability of extending the lives of heart patients by decades. That's no small thing when it's your own family member. Ask any heart attack survivor and he'll tell you that when he visits his cardiologist that he receives very practical advice on staying alive.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't know when to quit. I saw in the news that Barbara Bush is taking a pass on advanced medicine. She has elected to die at home sooner rather than later. If she's at peace with that then that's fine with me. But she's in her 90s and fighting CHF.


----------



## MoonRiver

Bearfootfarm said:


> Only because you seem to spend lots of time going to lots of Dr's.


You have absolutely no idea how many doctors I have seen, so why the uncalled for insult? Is this what you do on Sunday nights for entertainment?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Medicine is *all about relieving suffering and and prolonging life*. Anyone who doesn't believe in that should stay out of medicine.


But oddly it often has the opposite effect.



Nevada said:


> Ask any heart attack survivor and he'll tell you that when he visits his cardiologist that he receives very practical advice on staying alive.


Most were told before their heart attacks what could be done to prevent them, but they didn't listen. 

Just like obese people who go to a Dr and act surprised when they are told they need to control what they eat.

Medical treatments are all really "experimental" in the sense that each person is an individual who will respond differently to medications, and they should remain flexible when deciding what is best for them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> You have absolutely no idea how many doctors I have seen, so why the uncalled for insult?


There was no "insult".

You posted what *several* different Dr's had told you, and that's far more than many people see in a decade. 

I only go by what you say yourself.


MoonRiver said:


> *I've run into this over and over*, and cardiologists seem to be the worse, going so far as to denying I could reduce cholesterol by changing my diet. I had a Internal Medicine doctor tell me I should have bariatric surgery, because I would never lose weight. Of course I have lost 90 lbs since then without surgery.
> 
> Or how about the doctor that prescribed phen phen. Or another doctor that prescribed vioxx? Fortunately I quit both after 2 days because of the side effects.


By your own admission it seems you're going from Dr to Dr looking for one to tell you what you want to hear.

Many of your posts are about your numerous Dr visits and medical problems.
If you don't like comments about them, you shouldn't be bringing them up on public forums.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most were told before their heart attacks what could be done to prevent them, but they didn't listen.


I'm not sure of your point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I'm not sure of your point.


My point is most ignore good medical advice until they start having symptoms.

Then when a Dr tells them the same things they've heard for years they act surprised, like it's something new. The truth is they were receiving that same advice already but they thought it didn't apply to them because they had no symptoms.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> My point is most ignore good medical advice until they start having symptoms.
> 
> Then when a Dr tells them the same things they've heard for years they act surprised, like it's something new. The truth is they were receiving that same advice already but they thought it didn't apply to them because they had no symptoms.


My father was a doctor. In fact he was an internist specializing in preventative medicine. He had bypass surgery at 60, then died of a coronary at 79. I suppose he knew better, but he was a meat lover. He wasn't going to live on green salad when there are so many fun, greasy things to eat.

But I still don't understand your point. Is the suggestion that they don't deserve treatment because they didn't take better care of themselves? I had a father for 19 more years of life, courtesy of his bypass surgery.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Is the suggestion that they don't deserve treatment because they didn't take better care of themselves?


My point is no matter what they do the end results are typically the same.
Had you father eaten properly he might have been able to avoid surgery.
Not everyone responds the same way though.
Many blame Dr's when they can't get a quick easy "cure".


----------



## Alice In TX/MO

It appears that the discussion is being interpreted as more personal by a couple of people than what it appears to someone with no skin in the game.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> My point is no matter what they do the end results are typically the same.


Living 20 years longer isn't the same result as dying right now.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Many blame Dr's when they can't get a quick easy "cure".


Actually, statins offer a quick cure. You can have your steak and low cholesterol too.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> Living 20 years longer isn't the same result as dying right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, statins offer a quick cure. You can have your steak and low cholesterol too.


Doc attempted to prescribe my Mom statins, she asked him about the problems with statins and type2 diabetes. This was a prophylactic script as she did not have cholesterol problems. He admitted that it is a problem. She declined and told him to get back to her when they solved the problem.

WEDNESDAY, March 4, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Cholesterol-lowering statin drugs may significantly increase a person's risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a new study from Finland suggests.

Researchers found that statins were associated with an almost 50 percent higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, even after adjusting for other factors.

Statins appear to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in several ways, the researchers said. One is that the drugs can increase a person's insulin resistance, and the other is that the cholesterol-lowering drugs seem to impair the ability of the pancreas to secrete insulin, according to the report.

https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150304/statins-linked-to-raised-risk-of-type-2-diabetes#1


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> Doc attempted to prescribe my Mom statins, she asked him about the problems with statins and type2 diabetes. This was a prophylactic script as she did not have cholesterol problems. He admitted that it is a problem. She declined and told him to get back to her when they solved the problem.
> 
> WEDNESDAY, March 4, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Cholesterol-lowering statin drugs may significantly increase a person's risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a new study from Finland suggests.
> 
> Researchers found that statins were associated with an almost 50 percent higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, even after adjusting for other factors.
> 
> Statins appear to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in several ways, the researchers said. One is that the drugs can increase a person's insulin resistance, and the other is that the cholesterol-lowering drugs seem to impair the ability of the pancreas to secrete insulin, according to the report.
> 
> https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150304/statins-linked-to-raised-risk-of-type-2-diabetes#1


While that's true, type 2 diabetes isn't like juvenile diabetes. While the mechanism of type 2 diabetes is somewhat complicated, suffice it to say that when you get old your internal organs don't work as well as they did when you were young. About 25% of persons over 65 have type 2 diabetes, and that number goes up with age. Of persons over 80 it's more like half. Most seniors accept that they'll develop type 2 diabetes long before they have it. And it's not usually treated with insulin injections. Daily pills nearly always lower blood sugar to an acceptable level. Properly diagnosed and treated type 2 diabetes need not impact either quality of life or longevity.

But the side effects of statins are no joke. Most serious is liver damage. Doctors monitor liver enzymes of patents who take large doses of statins. But if you're taking 20mg or less of lipitor per day you're probably not tested for that. Taking 1000mg of flush-free niacin each day could get your numbers low enough to lower your dose of statins, so I would encourage anyone fighting cholesterol to give it a try.

Like most prescription medications, statins are a trade-off of risk vs reward. The side effects of statins are serious, but so is dying of a heart attack or stroke. Your doctor isn't going to take prescribing high doses of statins lightly. And you don't need to tell your doctor about the side effects of statins because he already knows.

Dosage is critical to side effects. The people most at risk are those taking 40mg to 80mg per day of lipitor. But if someone is taking large doses like that he's probably already a heart attack victim just trying to stay alive.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> While that's true, type 2 diabetes isn't like juvenile diabetes. While the mechanism of type 2 diabetes is somewhat complicated, suffice it to say that when you get old your internal organs don't work as well as they did when you were young. About 25% of persons over 65 have type 2 diabetes, and that number goes up with age. Of persons over 80 it's more like half. Most seniors accept that they'll develop type 2 diabetes long before they have it. And it's not usually treated with insulin injections. Daily pills nearly always lower blood sugar to an acceptable level. Properly diagnosed and treated type 2 diabetes need not impact either quality of life or longevity.
> 
> But the side effects of statins are no joke. Most serious is liver damage. Doctors monitor liver enzymes of patents who take large doses of statins. But if you're taking 20mg or less of lipitor per day you're probably not tested for that. Taking 1000mg of flush-free niacin each day could get your numbers low enough to lower your dose of statins, so I would encourage anyone fighting cholesterol to give it a try.
> 
> Like most prescription medications, statins are a trade-off of risk vs reward. The side effects of statins are serious, but so is dying of a heart attack or stroke. Your doctor isn't going to take prescribing high doses of statins lightly. And you don't need to tell your doctor about the side effects of statins because he already knows.
> 
> Dosage is critical to side effects. The people most at risk are those taking 40mg to 80mg per day of lipitor. But if someone is taking large doses like that he's probably already a heart attack victim just trying to stay alive.



From the same article. Also including in the article was the propensity of the drug for muscle pain and weakness. I would only take a in this class if I was told I'd die tomorrow. It seems a high risk drug and not appropriate for prophylactic use.

High-dose simvastatin was associated with a 44 percent increased risk of developing diabetes, while for low-dose simvastatin the increased risk was 28 percent. High-dose atorvastatin was linked to a 37 percent increased diabetes risk, the study found.

Based on these findings, physicians will have to weigh risks versus benefits before prescribing statins, said Dr. Al Powers, director of the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.


----------



## HermitJohn

I would strongly trust surgeons for trauma surgery. Get shot or in car accident and truly good chance if you are near larger hospital and make it there in time that you will survive.

Disease and GP doc, not so much. They are like an automotive technician as opposed to a true traditional mechanic. They have ten minutes to interview you and come up with a diagnosis. They rarely research anything. Too low on food chain to do that. Only super expensive specialists that might go that far and I doubt many of them actually do. They tend to know little to nothing of nutrition and dont want to spend time trying to explain what they do know, figuring you will ignore it anyway. They are there to do things the factory way and fix symptoms with pills, the way that is covered by standard insurance, even if the factory way doesnt quite fit the circumstances and even if the results are mediocre at best.

Unfortunately fee for service is pretty poor way to run a health care system. Profit should be last thing that dictates diagnosis and treatment. But thats how its done in the good ole USA.


----------



## HermitJohn

Nevada said:


> While that's true, type 2 diabetes isn't like juvenile diabetes. While the mechanism of type 2 diabetes is somewhat complicated, suffice it to say that when you get old your internal organs don't work as well as they did when you were young. About 25% of persons over 65 have type 2 diabetes, and that number goes up with age. Of persons over 80 it's more like half. Most seniors accept that they'll develop type 2 diabetes long before they have it. And it's not usually treated with insulin injections. Daily pills nearly always lower blood sugar to an acceptable level. Properly diagnosed and treated type 2 diabetes need not impact either quality of life or longevity.
> 
> But the side effects of statins are no joke. Most serious is liver damage. Doctors monitor liver enzymes of patents who take large doses of statins. But if you're taking 20mg or less of lipitor per day you're probably not tested for that. Taking 1000mg of flush-free niacin each day could get your numbers low enough to lower your dose of statins, so I would encourage anyone fighting cholesterol to give it a try.
> 
> Like most prescription medications, statins are a trade-off of risk vs reward. The side effects of statins are serious, but so is dying of a heart attack or stroke. Your doctor isn't going to take prescribing high doses of statins lightly. And you don't need to tell your doctor about the side effects of statins because he already knows.
> 
> Dosage is critical to side effects. The people most at risk are those taking 40mg to 80mg per day of lipitor. But if someone is taking large doses like that he's probably already a heart attack victim just trying to stay alive.


My doc when I was first diagnosed with diabetes said he was told to automatically put any new type2 diabetic immediately on statins WITHOUT any testiing. I told him it was unlikely I had cholesterol problem as I was a lifelong vegetarian. So he held off until after tests and found I indeed didnt need statins. My blood pressure was high as my body was very stressed. He put me on insulin to stabilize me and my blood pressure was normal within a month. Within two more month I had blood sugar controlled through diet and no more insulin. Most people with type2 arent willing to change diet drastically so need insulin or pills forever. Also its lot more expensive to eat low carb. Fresh produce simply costs lot money. While I was waiting in exam room heard him yelling at some other diabetic who wasnt following direction. When he saw my results, he just said keep doing whatever you are doing. He at that point hadnt given me any dietary instructions except parting remark at one early exam to "knock off the sugar". 

What I learned, I found on my own. The official diabetic diet by way is standard low fat, high carb, just suggestions of making it healthier and strictly limiting portions (which never works long term for any diet). They make assumption everybody is eating SAD that gets diabetes. By way back before insulin or other diabetic drugs, the high fat, low carb diet was the ONLY way to control blood sugar for a type2. Type1 before insulin was just a dead man walking. Still works though think some forget its high FAT, not high protein.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> What do you hope to accomplish by eroding people's faith in medicine? Maybe that's what we should be talking about.


The Internet has done that to most professions. We have access to the same information that prior to the Internet only a chosen few had access to. It's not that doctor's are getting dumber, it's that many patients are getting smarter.

I have successfully done many things in the last year that even 5 years ago I couldn't have done. From wiring my new van for towing my trailer to installing new bearings on my trailer to replacing a few damaged bricks, information is available in seconds to teach us almost anything if we are willing to make the effort.

I can order my own medical labs on line. I can get my own DNA analysis done without my doctor having to be the gatekeeper. I can research drugs and see if there might be better options. I can do many of the things my doctor is not willing to take the time to do. It's doctors who need to catch up with their patients.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> The Internet has done that to most professions. We have access to the same information that prior to the Internet only a chosen few had access to. It's not that doctor's are getting dumber, it's that many patients are getting smarter.


I was a chemical engineer in my pre-Internet life. I suppose people could lookup formulas for pipe sizing and what not, but it would never be a substitute for asking me about it.

My father was a doctor and I know that my knowledge of medicine is hardly worth mentioning compared to his. And I'm not a complete medical idiot. I did ambulance & rescue work for 9 years, and received considerable training. I used to have neighbors call me for medical advice, like, "My wife's doctor wants her to get a hysterectomy. What do you think?" What was I supposed to think?


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> I was a chemical engineer in my pre-Internet life. I suppose people could lookup formulas for pipe sizing and what not, but it would never be a substitute for asking me about it.
> 
> My father was a doctor and I know that my knowledge of medicine is hardly worth mentioning compared to his. And I'm not a complete medical idiot. I did ambulance & rescue work for 9 years, and received considerable training. I used to have neighbors call me for medical advice, like, "My wife's doctor wants her to get a hysterectomy. What do you think?" What was I supposed to think?


I don't know what you think but if someone asked me something like that I would tell them to get a second opinion. If I was not confident in my doc's recommendation I would be seeking additional help, a second opinion.


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> I don't know what you think but if someone asked me something like that I would tell them to get a second opinion. If I was not confident in my doc's recommendation I would be seeking additional help, a second opinion.


I just considered it to be a completely inappropriate question to ask a fire/rescue worker. Compared to a gynecologist my opinion is worth next to nothing. It's not like EMTs have any training to speak of about that sort of thing. But the fact that I was asked at all shows the kind of reputation rescue workers enjoyed, however undeserved it might have been.

That said, advising them to get a second opinion is a pretty good answer.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> I was a chemical engineer in my pre-Internet life. I suppose people could lookup formulas for pipe sizing and what not, but it would never be a substitute for asking me about it.
> 
> My father was a doctor and I know that my knowledge of medicine is hardly worth mentioning compared to his. And I'm not a complete medical idiot. I did ambulance & rescue work for 9 years, and received considerable training. I used to have neighbors call me for medical advice, like, "My wife's doctor wants her to get a hysterectomy. What do you think?" What was I supposed to think?


Let's use a simple example I am very familiar with. During an office visit, your blood pressure is very high. Your doctor immediately puts you on 1 or more meds. From that point on, all your doctor does is manage which bp drugs he prescribes and what dosage you should take. After 6 months you are on 3 drugs (typically beta blocker, calcium channel blocker, and diuretic) and BP is still not under control.

Do you continue down this path with the doctor and/or do you get on the internet and start doing your own research? In my case, if I had followed the advice of my doctor, 3 cardiologists, and a kidney specialist, I would likely still be 3 or more drugs at high dosages, taking several trips a year to the ER, and every night when I went to bed wondering if I would wake up the next morning. By using available internet resources, I am on just 1 drug and bp stays in range as long as I eat a controlled diet with limited saturated fat.

Here's an example of how doctors don't listen. I explained to 2 Nurse Practitioners and 1 cardiologist on separate occasions that when I had a bp spike over 200/100, it was often accompanied by heartburn. What I was trying to do was provide a clue and what all 3 of them said was "I can give you a prescription for a PPI". What I hoped they would do is stop for a second and consider what might cause both a BP spike and heartburn to occur at the same time, but it never occurred to them.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> Let's use a simple example I am very familiar with. During an office visit, your blood pressure is very high. Your doctor immediately puts you on 1 or more meds. From that point on, all your doctor does is manage which bp drugs he prescribes and what dosage you should take. After 6 months you are on 3 drugs (typically beta blocker, calcium channel blocker, and diuretic) and BP is still not under control.
> 
> Do you continue down this path with the doctor and/or do you get on the internet and start doing your own research? In my case, if I had followed the advice of my doctor, 3 cardiologists, and a kidney specialist, I would likely still be 3 or more drugs at high dosages, taking several trips a year to the ER, and every night when I went to bed wondering if I would wake up the next morning. By using available internet resources, I am on just 1 drug and bp stays in range as long as I eat a controlled diet with limited saturated fat.
> 
> Here's an example of how doctors don't listen. I explained to 2 Nurse Practitioners and 1 cardiologist on separate occasions that when I had a bp spike over 200/100, it was often accompanied by heartburn. What I was trying to do was provide a clue and what all 3 of them said was "I can give you a prescription for a PPI". What I hoped they would do is stop for a second and consider what might cause both a BP spike and heartburn to occur at the same time, but it never occurred to them.


I've had better luck with doctors than you've had.


----------

