pharos at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 23:14:52 UTC 2016
On 7 September 2016 at 15:54, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> The problem withe both of these criticisms is that you are relying on
> government and top medical sources, which are politically compromised. Just
> look into the American Heart Association and its history of supporting
> questionable data about fats, which is just now being overturned. "Use only
> polyunsaturated fats." Problem is, they lower HDL too.
> People's Pharmacy is not without its problems but at least it's an
> independent source. Read everybody, trust no one.
> Of course I am not qualified to judge primary sources, so I won't waste my
You have to rely on some medical sources. Try to choose reliable
sources. It's your life at stake.
News just in:
Statins review says benefits 'underestimated'
The benefits of the cholesterol-reducing drug statins are
underestimated and the harms exaggerated, a major review suggests.
Published in the Lancet and backed by a number of major health
organisations, it says statins lower heart attack and stroke risk.
The review also suggests side effects such as muscle pain do occur,
although in relatively few people.
The Lancet review, led by Prof Rory Collins from the Clinical Trial
Service Unit at the University of Oxford, looked at the available
evidence for the effects of taking an average 40mg daily dose of
statins in 10,000 patients over five years.
It suggested cholesterol levels would be lowered enough to prevent
1,000 "major cardiovascular events" such as heart attacks, strokes and
coronary artery bypasses in people who had existing vascular disease -
and 500 in people who were at risk due to age or other illnesses such
as high blood pressure or diabetes.
More information about the extropy-chat