Plaque volume is treated as heart disease itself. But, it is only a stand-in for the disease, and an unreliable one. Unfortunately, how you are managed rests on this faulty assumption.
How would Familial Hypercholesterolemia fit among all this? Should a person with FH work even harder at lowering inflammation as the only practical way to stay healthy for as long as possible?
They should minimize inflammation as the rest of us. I’m not entirely convinced that plaque burden is directly related to degree of elevated cholesterol. Research shows loose relationship.
So statins can lower inflammation a bit, but they raise risk of T2DM a bit, No?.
What is a fella to do? I have a calcium score of 975 likely from a lot of Coumadin after a pulmonary embolism many years ago. I'll talk to my doc about ditching the statins and saddling up with low dose colchicine.
I find my medical choices tend to be esthetic based on the elegance of the proposed mechanism of action. I actually don't trust evidence which makes me an outlier.
Regards, and thanks for the thought provoking article.
As usual, just pass out the drugs without any investigation as to what may be causing the need for drugs. There has to be root causes for any affliction. Something happens over time to cause these conditions and modern medicine doesn't have a clue. Thus, taking a drug for any reason does not address what caused the need to take the drugs in the first place. That is not health in my book.
Wow - thank you for this. What a great explanation. I especially like the high hsCRP low Cholesterol intervention study. As someone who has calcium in their LAD (I'm 59), found 2 years ago. I was not happy to see this "healing" and at the same time was thankful that my body was able to "heal". I am very active with great blood flow, strength, endurance and overall health. I would not get additional testing and plan on avoid the "Sick Care Complex as long as I can.
Could you explain this a little more please? I'm reading the positive eventual effect of the statin on inflammation comes from a potentially not beneficial process with the WMB metabolism. I feel like I've read it somewhere before with e very simple explanation but it escapes me.
I believe that any evidence presented for statins could actually just be the anti-inflammatory effect and nothing to do with cholesterol. But as he mentions there are better (less side effects), cheaper ways to target inflammation.
How would Familial Hypercholesterolemia fit among all this? Should a person with FH work even harder at lowering inflammation as the only practical way to stay healthy for as long as possible?
They should minimize inflammation as the rest of us. I’m not entirely convinced that plaque burden is directly related to degree of elevated cholesterol. Research shows loose relationship.
So statins can lower inflammation a bit, but they raise risk of T2DM a bit, No?.
What is a fella to do? I have a calcium score of 975 likely from a lot of Coumadin after a pulmonary embolism many years ago. I'll talk to my doc about ditching the statins and saddling up with low dose colchicine.
I find my medical choices tend to be esthetic based on the elegance of the proposed mechanism of action. I actually don't trust evidence which makes me an outlier.
Regards, and thanks for the thought provoking article.
If inflammation, bp and thyroid are all healthy then I don’t see the point of any medication
Thank you! Great article.
Been working thru it for a while, glad you like it
As usual, just pass out the drugs without any investigation as to what may be causing the need for drugs. There has to be root causes for any affliction. Something happens over time to cause these conditions and modern medicine doesn't have a clue. Thus, taking a drug for any reason does not address what caused the need to take the drugs in the first place. That is not health in my book.
Wow - thank you for this. What a great explanation. I especially like the high hsCRP low Cholesterol intervention study. As someone who has calcium in their LAD (I'm 59), found 2 years ago. I was not happy to see this "healing" and at the same time was thankful that my body was able to "heal". I am very active with great blood flow, strength, endurance and overall health. I would not get additional testing and plan on avoid the "Sick Care Complex as long as I can.
Great writeup.
Though i was surprised to see statins do anything positive at all.
So. They can lower some inflammation?
They do so by poisoning the very active metabolism of wbc
Could you explain this a little more please? I'm reading the positive eventual effect of the statin on inflammation comes from a potentially not beneficial process with the WMB metabolism. I feel like I've read it somewhere before with e very simple explanation but it escapes me.
I believe that any evidence presented for statins could actually just be the anti-inflammatory effect and nothing to do with cholesterol. But as he mentions there are better (less side effects), cheaper ways to target inflammation.