There's an article online at Livingstrong.com The heading is: Bad Side Effects from CoQ10

As Zonerboy and Gracie have pointed out, you are quoting a statistic which is taken out of context unless you compare the 100,000 lives lost to the number of lives saved.
While it's a tragedy that even one life has been lost because of prescription meds, I think that the statistic is just fear mongering unless compared to the billions of lives saved.

Pharmaceuticals have had a major roll in patient safety programs for a long time. That includes self medication errors, dispensing errors, and being giving the wrong pharmaceuticals in clinical settings. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement has information on patient safety programs. Getting Started There is an entire subindustry working on patient safety issues and quality improvement. Clinicians

$280.00 per month? Does your doctor think money grows on trees?

You could be enjoying 2 servings per week of fresh wild caught salmon, assuming you are not a vegan. Also, other adjustments may help as well, like a high fiber diet.

You, and your above mentioned friends, have NO statistics whatsoever to support your view. If you can call my statistics "fear mongering", I suppose your complete lack of statistics could be called "ignorance mongering."

I'll post the results of a large study in my next post. Stay tuned.

Drugs not as important as many might think:
 

A Denmark study of 182,880 elders were followed for an average of 9 years.

This study was published in the prestigious Cochrane Library.

Researchers found that annual physicals prevented nothing. There was no difference in death rates between one group getting an annual physical and another group not getting an annual physical. Also, there was no difference in life expectancy or quality of life.

Researchers suggested that the yearly physical may do more harm than good. That's because needless tests often lead to unneeded biopsies and surgery. There may be some gains and losses but no net gain overall.

What does this have to do with drugs? If one does not go for a yearly exam, it's unlikely that any condition will be caught early, whereby drugs might be prescribed as a potential life-saving measure.

Another study (unnamed in this article) showed that when drugs were taken for high blood pressure, health outcomes were not affected in any way.

The above information comes from a May 13, 2014, Daily Sun column by Dr. Lipschitz. The heading: "Annual physical may be of little value."

First of all you can different results in google depending on how you formulate the question.

Fish oil is still oil. which will irritate the endothelium lining of your arteries, creating plaque while it still may reduce cholesterol. It is not the lesser of two evils.

A much safer alternative (at about $5 a month) is ground flax seed like in cereal.

Mine was about 175, now 130-135 on a vegan diet in a few months. saves $280 a month (I can buy a new car with that savings)

Also be mindful cholesterol levels are different day to day, depends what you eat

Sounds like Lovaza (Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters) and, as of a few months ago, you can now get Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters Capsules, USP, the generic version of GlaxoSmithKline's Lovaza. I can't think of any reason the Dr wouldn't allow the generic.

Was that the study's finding or your own extrapolation? the study said a yearly exam didn't cause people to live longer, and therefore you are taking that to mean that if you didn't go for a yearly physical, you wouldn't be prescribed any drugs?

Where is a link to the study? What was the name of the study?

No doubt many of the 106,000 claimed to have been killed would have died anyway without whatever medications they were prescribed.


Barbara Starfield (December 18, 1932 - June 10, 2011) was an American pediatrician. She was 78 years old.

Barbara Starfield, professor of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, passed away on June 10, 2011.

KIR, thanks for the info. You say Ms. Starfield died in 2011.
Do you know the date of the "106,000 died from prescription meds" statistic?

CFrance,

I don't have the article here with me at this time. It was written by a medical doctor and I trust that he interpreted the study correctly. I followed what the article said very closely. People who go for regular check ups take more medication than those who don't. That's just common sense because more health issues are caught early. Yet there's no way anyone could possibly say that those who don't go for yearly exams don't take any medication. That's also common sense. It's not an all-or-nothing situation. The only requirement is that you understand the purpose of going to a doctor and what doctors do.

When "healthy" people go for yearly checkups, what is the point of it? Mainly, the point is for doctors to catch things early and prescribe medication and/or an operation.

The report I gave was from a Daily Sun Article. If you think you can do better, find your own study. What is it that you are trying to prove? That Dr. prescribed drugs save lives?
Okay, why don't you do a search to find out?

Try the following search:
 

Search: How many lives are saved yearly by taking prescription drugs?

Here it is. Published 14 years ago in 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAMA Network | JAMA | Is US Health Really the Best in the World?
__________________

How I read that is sometimes genetics dispose you to conditions regardless of lifestyle and diet choices. And I have a friend who absolutely proves that. A runner, a vegan, no oils and nevertheless high cholesterol, which killed most males in his family.

I could do better than The Daily Sun, but you are the one espousing the theory, so I feel the onus is on you. I know people whose lives have been saved by prescribed drugs, including myself.

I think that "catching something early" is a very positive benefit of annual health check-ups.

That's not absolute proof. Running indicates a desire to overachieve and that can create stress hormones which in turn can cause the liver to overproduce cholesterol.

It's not a theory, it's a study result. You either believe it or you don't. But if you are going to give reasons for not believing it, you would need to give some better reasons.

This study was not about what happened to one individual. And it was not about cherry-picking good results. It was about comparing the net result of 2 groups. And there was no difference in health outcomes.

Some were helped by regular checkups and some were harmed. So what you're saying is that you were one of the lucky ones. That doesn't invalidate the study.

Yes, it can be a very positive benefit. And that's what we are told to focus on. Think positively! But that's not the way it always works in the real world, as shown by this study.

For example, some have been helped by colonoscopies and some have been killed. If you only look at the ones that have been helped, which is what the medical community wants you to do, you will think there are nothing but good outcomes. There's a book on this subject: "Death by Colonoscopy" by Dr. Kaayla Daniel

First of all, every colonoscopy patient must sign a Waiver prior to the procedure which warns about possible negatives.
So patients do NOT think "there are nothing but good outcomes".
Most retired people are smarter than that and ask good questions.
For every procedure, there is some kind of book by an alarmist who wants to make some money and warn us about the risks.
An author/doctor who also knows that a catchy title is the way to do it.
Yes, a very small percentage of people may experience damage from colonoscopies, even a death
because of the anesthetic or a problem with the surgery itself.

As I said, a patient must sign a Waiver before the procedure, as with most medical procedures.
However millions of lives have been saved by colonoscopies, because bowel cancer is detectable early and treatable.
Now you're going to ask me how I know that millions of lives have been saved, to "prove" it and to provide statistics.
How can you possible quantify lives saved or polyps found? I can't.
But it's one cancer which is detectable and treatable. Don't we all want to know if we have cancer and catch it early?

Oh, BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am very suspicious of doctors who write books, unless they're textbooks. I question if they mainly want to make more money, or a name for themselves that will lead to making more money, or achieving prestige and power in their workplace.

Many don't even bother to read the waiver. If they do, they try to have a positive outlook, as you would, and imagine that the risk is minor. That's because everyone has been sold on the idea of getting a colonoscopy. The industry sees to it that most everyone becomes convinced.


How can you judge whether such books are worthwhile or not. Name one that you've read.

That's your conclusion without having read the book. What happens when you match up the small percentage of lives saved with the small number of lives lost?

I don't know, I haven't read the book yet. But I think I will as soon as I get a chance.


That's a good question but not one that has a simple answer. The problem is sometimes one of catching certain cancers too early which leads to unnecessary treatments. There's a book for that too: "Should I Be Tested For Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why"

In my opinion, he didn't provide enough information on colonoscopies. But colonoscopies would certainly be covered by the other book.

Is that what you would call a knowledgeable and thoughtful reply?

:agree: I think Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil have proven that some doctors love the limelight.

Do you know how much money a doctor makes when he/she writes a text book? Are they trying to make a name for themselves besides make a ton of money or make a name for themselves in their workplace?

And textbooks are not without errors by any means. There was a time, not too long ago, when most doctors refused to believe that lost brain cells could be regenerated. So that's what was in the text books. Now we know that brain cells can be regenerated.

I agree, but for a different reason. Don't believe everything you hear from a doctor on television or radio. It has to do with commercialism.

Don't believe everything you hear or read from a vegan on TOTV unless it's BarryRX.

The lesson to be learned here is that if you never say anything to promote or communicate the health benefits of veganism, you can't ever be wrong.

While not going too deeply into the issue on this thread i read an article wherein the medical community is split on the treatment and more specifically the over treatment of some forms of cancer. Essentially medical science has gotten good at detecting lesions and hence early treatment except some medical doctors believe no treatment should be rendered. In fact some medical doctors believe some legions shouldn't even be called cancer because patents over react.

Because of the legal environment medical professionals act with the thought constantly on their minds that they can be sued. Pharma is faced with the same issue plus securing FDA approval and instruction, etc. its a wonder anything in the medical community every gets done Add to that the fish oil salesmen and viola!

I am not enamored with medication but don't want to be one of those who doctors' himself and has a fool for a patient.

My personal concern at this time is the prolonged use of statins. My blood work stats at present are ideal.

I think stress kills more people so I will try not to worry about it to much.

I beg to differ!!! I am a 10 year endometrial cancer survivor, and although my doctor thought I was nuts thinking something was seriously wrong with me because I had such minor symptoms, he agreed to do an endometrial biopsy at my insistence. A week after the biopsy was taken I received a call from my doctor informing me I had cancer. Two weeks later I was in the operating room, and by the Grace of God my aggressive grade cancer was caught at an early stage. Had my cancer been caught at a more advanced stage I would likely not be here today as late stage endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis.

Each year when I have my annual appointment with my doctor he tells me everytime he questions whether or not to do a endometrial biopsy on a woman with similar symptoms that I had he goes the biopsy route. Thus far, 5 women who my doctor prior to his experience with me likely would not have done biopsies on came back positive for endometrial cancer and had successful treatment becaue their cancesr was caught early.

OH yes. I can't imagine anyone saying to their doctor when told they have cancer that they don't want any "unnecessary" treatment. What you say is, "Bring it ON". Even if it makes you bald and sick and weak.

Daughter had breast cancer spread into 11 lymph nodes at age 29. She had surgery, industrial strength chemo treatments, and as much radiation as her body could take....and thank you dear loving God, she is here with us. Last week she was 48.

Sounds like a Suzanne Somers type with a medical degree.

Gracie, there are a lot of us out there who are alive thanks to prescribed medicine, as you and I know. I doubt seriously that most people, faced with a life-threatening illness--due to genetics, the environment (think Love Canal), or other factors--would reject medicine.

And oh... my friend who has the genetic disorder of too much cholesterol... he did not start running until after he was diagnosed. Had a heart attack that doctors said would have killed him had he not been running. So no crazy disorder caused by over exercising, or whatever was stated by another poster, caused his heart attack.

Bless your daughter and wish her many many more years of good health :)

There are tests that are important for men and women as they age, such as bone density, colonoscopy and sometimes endoscopy. This beyond the quarterly monitoring blood tests for sugar and cholesterol, and thyroid function.

Sex specific tests such as mammograms and checking for indications of testicular cancer are important too.

The OP has raised the issue of danger from a colonoscopy before and I have to think that having a colonoscopy has been recommended by his doctor.

There are dangers to everything medical. It is a calculated risk that we have some control over by continuing to be educated by the enormous amount of good and poor information on TELEVISION and by choosing the best physician we can find and following his advice and by choosing the best medical facilities too.

We further educate ourselves by anecdotal information from people we trust and by reading CURRENT medical information from accredited institutions. Of course we are using common sense in all of these matters unless we have some other issue that overrides common sense.

I think that some people have tunnel vision about current issues for a variety of reasons. They are convinced they are right and will not seriously entertain any other way to think. AND you cannot win any argument with a person with a certain type of untreated OCD.