Side Effects from Crestor...statin drugs...

Your article in reply to Joe was quite interesting......I had tried CRESTOR and LIPITOR previously with muscle pain severe enough to make me stop.

This time a new Dr is putting me on Pravachol but with COQ10...at least he realized COQ10 is important!! but after reading this website I may soon be changing off the Pravachol to Cholest-Natural.. I know too many people suffering in their use of statins..I feel lucky to have stumbled onto this website and am passing on the site to many of my friends. I agree that the drug compnaies are tilting the new acceptable lipid levels.

Thanks for your comments Bob.

It may well be that our Cholest-Natural may be all that you need and as such you can avoid a statin...which would be desirable. You can if you wish combine the Cholest-Natural with the Cardio-Klenz to get the maximum results not only for your cholesterol but your heart and circulation in general.

If your cholesterol is only mildly elevated and you primarily want to give your entire circulation system a boost you may not even need the Cholest-Natural. Cardio-Klenz also helps lower cholesterol but is is not as potent as Cholest-Natural in this regard and uses a different mechanisim of action.

Let me know if I can clarify anything further.

Certainly you are used to the MEDICAL COMMUNITY questioning herbal products.I just received a copy of a CHOLESTEROL report from Univ of California Berkeley Wellness Letter. They question the efficiacy of "POLICOSANOL'....I realize many positive studies are listed here but they all seem to be from Cuba which would be the producer of the ingredient(policosanol from sugar cane wax)
A German study published in the AMA Journal in May 2006 and another study published in THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION last Dec found that supplements of POLICOSANOL did not work to lower LIPIDS.
I want to believe but with all your studies listed from Cuba I find there could be a conflict between their results and what they wanted the results to be.
On the other hand I do find it interesting that the MEDICAL COMMUNITY is so concerned about herbal products' side effects when we know statins can have bad side effects.I will continue to read your website completely.

Hi Bob,

I had a similar question to this when this news items came out last year. I have pasted below the question and my response which will I hope throw some light on the subject. Thanks for raising it,

Question: from Marion (Subject: Policosanol effectiveness?)

I was disheartened today to read the attached article (below) outlining a medical study that evidently confirms that policosanol is ineffective as a cholesterol lowering supplement. I have been using your Cholest-Natural for the past 3 months and have recently purchased a further 3 month supply. I decided to use your product as an alternative to red yeast rice extract, because it seemed to be the healthier, safer alternative.

As policosanol is listed as the most active ingredient in this product, I'd greatly appreciate your advice with regard to these latest medical findings included in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

I look forward to hearing your insights with regard to this matter.

Many thanks, Marion

“Trendy supplement doesn't lower cholesterol
May 17 (Reuters Health)

Policosanol, touted as a natural way to treat high cholesterol levels, appears to be useless, German investigators report in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association.

Policosanol is an extract of the waxy coating of sugar cane and other plants, and multiple trials have demonstrated that it safely lowers lipid levels. However, Dr. Heiner K. Berthold and his colleagues note that almost all of these studies came from one group in Cuba, whose research was funded by Dalmer Laboratories, which markets policosanol.

In an attempt to confirm their findings, Berthold, from the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association in Berlin, and his team performed a "rigorously controlled" multicenter study comparing Cuban sugar cane-derived policosanol with an inactive "placebo" supplement.

Their study involved 143 Caucasian adults with LDL ("bad") cholesterol levels of at least 150 milligrams per deciliter.

Participants were randomly assigned to policosanol at doses of 10, 20, 40 or 80 milligrams daily or placebo. After 12 weeks, the researchers saw no statistically or clinically significant effect on LDL cholesterol at any dose.

Similarly, the investigators report, there were no significant differences among the groups in HDL ("good") cholesterol levels, total cholesterol, very low density-cholesterol, triglycerides, or lipoprotein(a).

Berthold's team concludes that "more independent studies are required to counterbalance the vast body of available positive trials." They also hope to see trials showing patient-related outcomes, such as cardiovascular illness and mortality.

The study was sponsored by Madaus AG, an international company specializing in plant-derived drugs, which does not manufacture or distribute any cholesterol-lowering drugs.

SOURCE: Journal of the American Medical Association, May 17, 2006.

Publish Date: May 17, 2006."

Answer: from Warren

This is a rather interesting study. Interesting in a number of ways!

The study was funded by a pharmaceutical company. Admittedly it does not manufacture cholesterol lowering drugs but they have many associates who may or may not be such manufacturers. One can’t help wondering what their motivation was for funding the study in the first instance.


Is that the study was completed in 2001. Why have they waited for five years before having it published? That is not ‘normal’.


Policosanol over the last few years has become widely accepted worldwide as a safe an effective alternative to the statin drugs. Statin drugs are proving to be the biggest cash earner of all time for many pharmaceutical companies. Policosanol is undoubtly having an impact on the sale of these drugs. Is this a factor in the five year delay in publication? I don’t know…but, I am sure someone does!


The study does not indicate the delivery method used. If it was in a capsule form the efficacy of the policosanol would be compromised. Because policosanol in a ‘normal’ capsule is not the most effective means of delivery we 'bind' the policosanol to a combination of oils in a softgel in the case of Cholest-Natural and in an enteric coating when used in Total Balance.


It is not true that all the previous studies were carried out in Cuba. There have been studies in the USA, Australia, Canada and other countries also with positive results. You can go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Pager&DB=pubmed and enter policosanol and review the published literature.


The baseline of an average LDL of 150 they used for the subjects is relatively low. Unlike a statin, policosanol will not artificially force levels of cholesterol down.


There are many clinics in Europe specializing in natural treatments for lowering cholesterol and policosanol is their most effective ingredient.
It's also rather interesting that JAMA published this old negative study but they seem to ignore the positive ones.

From our own experience policosanol is an excellent substance and is very beneficial for those people suffering from high cholesterol. However, it is only one of the substances that we use to achieve the desired results. We combine it with a number of other important substances to maximize its effectiveness.

Honestly Marion, I would not be disheartened by this report. It is a good effective ingredient.

To see unedited results from quite a number of customers go to Cholest-Natural/What-our-Customers-Say-About-Cholest-Natural. Of course these are not part of a clinical study but nonetheless they are actual results unsolicited by us.

At the end of the day it is results that count and I am sure when you have your next blood test you will find that it is working for you as it has for thousands of other customers.

Can we guarantee that it will work? No…because for some people it won’t work and neither does a statin drug. No two people are the same but it does work for the overwhelming majority of people, just as statins do…BUT…it has no negative side effects.

Hmm, guess I'm one of those "extremely rare people?" My LDL last time I had it checked was 72. I don't take any medications or supplements targeting cholesterol. Diet is about 80%-90% vegetables, legumes, fruit, and nuts/seeds; I also eat some eggs from pasture-raised hens and wild salmon. I minimize all processed foods (flour, sugar, etc.).

Hello---I don't even go to the Dr. to get my cholesterol levels measured. Every time I do, the Dr. gasps and sends me for stress tests and tries to place me on huge amounts of cholesterol lowering drugs. The doctors "scare me to death!". My cholestrol levels have always been high. It is an inherited thing. It has been over 400 for at least 10 years now. I forget what the seperate levels of LDL and HDL levels are, but my cortisol levels are good and there is no inflammation. I refuse to take drugs at this point. I see what drugs do to people and I do not want to be in that majority. My nephew, as a teenager was placed on Lipitor. He showed liver damage a few years later so the Dr. switched to the other cholesterol lowering drug. To me, it is not worth getting liver or muscle damage. I have been taking nutritional supplements for over 30 years now and am in very good health. I just have high cholesterol. I use herbs and supplements for my illnesses. I went on a total vegetarian diet a few years ago. I ate organic fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grain, homemade breads. My cholesterol went UP instead of down! I really believe in my heart that my cholesterol is normal for me. I don't even think about it. I eat almost all organic with lots of fresh fruits and vegetables and grass-fed meats. I also take your Omega 3/DHA esters, Chlorella, Q10, digestive enzymes, probiotics, a multi and other nutritional supplements and I have added Policosinol to my regimin. I had rather have quality of life than take drugs and have the side affects. I lost my dad last year at age 88. He was on supplements for years, along with a long list of drugs that he was told he couldn't live without. He had colon blockage and went to the hospital for tests. They told him if he wanted to live he would have to have his colon removed. He fell for their lies and died of complications of surgery due to taking Plavix to thin his blood. I will NEVER take those drugs and anyone who wants to live should use supplements and foods for their health. I do believe that the Doctors have their place, and if I need one, I will not refuse to see one! I'm in my 60's.

I appreciate people such as you. May God bless all your efforts!

Mary

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your comments. Do you realise that we have a high quality policosanol in all three versions of our Total Balance? If you do an exercise on it you might find it could replace your multi, your policosanol and some of your other supplements. You may end up getting more for less.

Hi Warren,

Should I be concerned about my total cholesterol number of 184- you mentioned 180 being too low? My HDL is 63 and my LDL is 112 plus 43 for triglycerides. I'm 43- female and have been taking your TB- womens and Omega GLM for about 1 year. Also on a different note, my blood pressure is usually somewhere around 90/60- it was 83/57 last time it was taken- I asked the Dr. if I should worry and he said no- I have a slight heart murmur- I was told it was #1? Should I consider adding Cardio Klenz to my routine?
Thanks,
Susan

Hi Susan,

Just like some people who have genetically high cholesterol you look like you have genetically low cholesterol. The good news is that your HDL is really high so I would not be concerned about your total low cholesterol or your low blood pressure. My daughter who is 31 has similar blood pressure and she is in excellent health and an active sportswoman.

The only concern that you appear to have is the slight heart murmur. With regard to whether you should take Cardio-Klenz it probably is not necessary given that you are taking the Total Balance and Omega 3, but it still may be a good idea to take it for just a three month period...at the lower dose of just 4 tabs a day.

This you would do in addition to your current regime.

The benefit of doing this is that it will help give your arteries a 'spring clean' and your circulation system in general as well as giving your heart a bit of a boost.

This would acually be a good protocol to practice say every couple of years as good insurance.

Regarding your comments to 'Joe'. So disheartening to hear you advise ANYONE to take Crestor, low dose or otherwise.
My husband has been totally destroyed by being scare-mongered into taking Statin drugs (Lipitor in particular). GPs here in the UK are completely unconcerned with the harm they are doing for they reap financial rewards from massively over-prescribing these toxic substances.

Hi Moyra.

I fully understand your sentiments about Crestor.

I would never advocate anyone taking a statin drug least of all Crestor which is arguably the worst of the lot.

However, when a person is already on a statin drug we have to take a cautious approach. This is because if someone comes off a statin drug 'cold turkey' their cholesterol levels can really skyrocket to heights in excess of what they were before they even started on the statin.

So, we generally adovcate a three month phase out period starting by reducing the intake by 1/3rd every month and then periodic testing in conjunction with their physcian. This is normally successful when done with our Cholest-Natural as an adjunct..

Perhaps I did not expand enough on my answer to Joe and reinforce that he should follow this protocol until he is able to wean himself off the statin completely.

It is difficult for me at times because I already tread a fairly fine line and if I advocate someone stop medication we potentially run a serious risk to both that person and ourselves.

For example, if say that person had other risk factors in addition to high cholesterol and a sudden spike in cholesterol was enough to trigger a fatal haart attack not only would that be bad for the person concerned but the authorities would blame us and shut us down and we would no longer be able to help assist people with their health issues.

However rest assured that I fully understand and appreciate the points that you raise.

Warren,
Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. It makes perfect sense. You may be interested to know that a recent television broadcast here (which wd have given viewers much information about statin-damage) was severely curtailed due to "legal reasons".
All good wishes,
Moyra

That's interesting. Thanks for sharing that Moyra. I would imagine the 'legal' reasons are due to exposing the truth and then having to argue the truth in court. Risky stuff.

My husband has been coerced into taking cholesterol lowering drugs and at about 180-200, I don't think his is too high. And, by coerced I mean when my husband applied for life insurance and the company contacted his doctor, the doctor told them he "wouldn't" take the medicines prescribed to him so the insurance oompany turned him down.

Hi Shirley,

Truly? That is incredible! 180 - 200 is certainly not to high. If his triglycerides, C-Reactive Protein and Homocysteine are normal he is likely in good shape.

That is criminal in my opinion. Fancy putting him at risk by having him on a statin when he does not need it. Maybe the best solution would be for him to receive the drug but not take it. At least he could get the insurance!

Hmmm...maybe I shouldn't have said that???

Don't flush them down the toilet though! There are enough drugs as it is finding there way into the water system.

What about finding a more enlightened Doctor?