[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
I read more than the internet.
It is well proven that CoQ10 deficiencies are dangerous and cause muscle damage. I would not expect to see that in studies that cross your desk. Do assume that heart muscles are immune to damage that occurs to other muscles is insane.
"Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) can be synthesized in the body, but individuals with periodontal disease, hypertension, or cardiovascular diseases are frequently deficient. Heart tissue biopsies in patients with various heart diseases showed a CoQ10 deficiency in 50-75% of cases. A significant finding is that cholesterol-lowering medications (as statin drugs) reduce CoQ10 levels. A CoQ10 deficiency of 25% is associated with illness and a deficit of 75% is associated with death in animals (Bliznakov et al. 1988; Hattersley 1994)."
Administering CoQ10 (50-150 mg daily) for 90 days to 2664 patients with CHF resulted in the following symptomatic and clinical improvements: cyanosis (bluish skin color), 78.1%; edema, 78.6%; pulmonary crackle, 77.8%; dyspnea, 52.7%; palpitations, 75.4%; sweating, 79.8%; arrhythmia, 63.4%; and vertigo, 73.1%. Fifty-four percent of the patients observed a concurrent improvement in several symptoms, which could be interpreted as an improvement in quality of life (Baggio et al. 1994). A 1-year study involving 640 individuals with CHF showed that patients using CoQ10 were healthier and required less hospitalization (Moriscot et al. 1993)."
"The effects of oral treatment with CoQ10 (120 mg a day) were compared for 28 days in 73 (intervention group A) and 71 (placebo group B) patients with acute myocardial infarction. Following treatment, angina pectoris (9.5% versus 28.1%), total arrhythmias (9.5% versus 25.3%), and poor left ventricular function (8.2% versus 22.5%) were significantly reduced in the CoQ10 group compared to the placebo group. Total cardiac events, including cardiac deaths and nonfatal infarctions, were also significantly reduced in the CoQ10 group compared with the placebo group (15% versus 30.9%) (Singh et al. 1998; Niibori et al. 1999)."
because something is "natural" does not mean that it is safe or effective.
--- does not follow that drugs from major drug companies are safe or effective.
You will not get studies on things natural from drug reps. They do exist. Folks do research on things that occur naturally in the body to see how they work and what happens when there is a natural or drug induced deficiency. How folks got on to policosanols... I don't know. But there have have been double blind tests against stantins and placebos. Double blind as well. Again, the drug companies are not going to hand out papers showing that something can be safe, cheap and inexpensive which threatens their market. So you hear about such things through differnent channels.. like this. And then you can go and learn about these alternatives for your self, or not, your choice.
Yes I know about the very low induced cholesterol studies. I have seen folks concerned that this may not be safe. So I issued a caution to not get carried away. Perhaps someone on a strong statin does, stacked with policosanol and niacin and others could be going into low ranges. Better informed than not, even if unlikely as you state.
The point I was making is that there are cheap effective and sometimes safer alteratives to statin drugs. Yes, folks need to do their homework as they will be going outside of the estabished norm. Those who wish to learn more should not be disouraged either.
posted by 68.95.119...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
