Flora Deals & Discounts

Zuulan

Is anyone reading this thread on statins? If so, have you ever eaten … Is anyone reading this thread on statins? If so, have you ever eaten Grape fruit whilst on them? Information isn't clear on whether you can have a moderate amount of grapefruit whilst on statins.Read lessRead more

manningd

I was told DO NOT EVER have grapefruit - The trouble is that I cannot … I was told DO NOT EVER have grapefruit - The trouble is that I cannot remember if it was the Statins or the other pills and potions I am on.Read lessRead more

Zuulan

Is anyone reading this thread on statins? If so, have you ever eaten … Is anyone reading this thread on statins? If so, have you ever eaten Grape fruit whilst on them? Information isn't clear on whether you can have a moderate amount of grapefruit whilst on statins.Read lessRead more

purswanirahul

thats not true... its other way round ....

dancedar

I'll just leave this here People with higher cholesterol levels live … I'll just leave this here People with higher cholesterol levels live longer than people with lower cholesterol levels.Read lessRead more

dancedar

Ignore that part, indulge in sat fat, it too has been exonerated form any … Ignore that part, indulge in sat fat, it too has been exonerated form any link to cvd :)I have a fridge with 6 500g Anchor butter blocks in, same again in the freezer, we eat lots of it and all our blood work comes back perfect now, triglycerides etc well below the norm. So glad I looked into this but wished I'd done it sooner, for myself and parents...Read lessRead more

dancedar

Agreed. I see no benefit of eating Flora anything, especially once you … Agreed. I see no benefit of eating Flora anything, especially once you read how margarine is made, it's pretty gross. Eat butter and cheese and eggs and leave the veg oils and Flora-pushed slime for others! Of course, fries once in a while won't kill you, but a once-taken change from Flora to butter will save you a lot of trouble health-wise over the years. Plus, butter is delicious!Read lessRead more

yrreb88

Opening with an ad hominem is always a winner. Of course researchers are … Opening with an ad hominem is always a winner. Of course researchers are funded by the industry however that is declared and funds their research i.e. it isn't a financial incentive, there aren't exactly scientists running around in ferraris. That website was an example but not a real example and it showed a financial incentive to bad mouth statins. Do you not see the irony in linking that when you're trying to show a financial incentive to push statins by big pharma?Real stories from people don't matter at all in terms of real scientific evidence, that is simply anecdotal evidence filled with bias and a hundred other factors. If you cared to check one of the studies I linked, you would see that a large study established that statins have a very noticable nocebo effect. And before you cry "industry funded rubbish" or something, it was a 84,000 strong study co-authored by Ben Goldacre, a very anti-pharma researcher. So you ignore Doctors, researchersand experts/specialists in their fields because they are all apparently funded by industry but you make an exception to trust one that speaks out against statins? You deny any research supporting the benefits statins but cite a Dr speaking out as evidence they are dangerous and just pushed to benefit drugs companies? As a scientist, he should know that he cannot simpy attribute his symptoms immediately to statins and stories from real people are not evidence to the effect of something. He sounds like a politician in the US who is concerned about vaccines and autism, they have heard hundreds of stories from real mothers and are concerned about the obvious and real dangers of vaccines. Not only do we have randomised controlled trials but we have the yellow card scheme which is designed for everybody to report all adverse effects to the medicines watchdog. You also still deny, and have yet to provide evidence disproving, the link between cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease which is a well established consensus worldwide. Your last point makes no sense. Why on earth should statins be available to anyone who wants them? Morphine is safe so shall we let that be served over the counter to anyone who wants some? These small trials involve hundreds of thousands of people. You should look up drug development, Phase IV clinical trials is the continued study of a drug after it has been approved for sale for safety. You linked a study with 9,000 subjects to prove the danger of statins, you are simply cherry picking now, picking evidence that suits your argument, despite arguing against researchers and "small trials".TLDR - You probably think I am closed minded for believing all this but I look at all evidence with skepticism and criticism and make my own choices and I suggest you do the same. You seem to dismiss all positive evidence crying conspiracy unless it supports you own views i.e. confirmation bias so I would argue that, if anyone, it is you that is closed minded. I am never going to deny statins have side effects and the current question is whether they are suitable for low risk groups. At the moment however, the benefits to high risk groups clearly outweigh any negatives and all concerned about receiving statins should discuss it with their GP. There are alternatives but sometimes diet and excercise aren't enough.Read lessRead more

morty

You are a Muppet so pharm companies do not pay or give incentives to … You are a Muppet so pharm companies do not pay or give incentives to doctors/researchers well not in your fantasy world i guess they don't.That website was an example that anyone can jump on the web like you did and pull articles about this stuff.It's the stories from real people that are important and I have seen many people have lifes destroyed by taking statins not being fully warned that they can do serious harm.A quote from someone who has experience Former GP and deputy chairman of the British Medical Association Dr Kailash Chand has first-hand experience of the side effects of statins."A few years ago I started taking statins knowing that it has all the benefits and after perhaps a few weeks I started having muscle aches, sleep disturbance."He says much of the data that the new NICE recommendations are based on comes from pharmaceutical companies that make statins, which, arguably, have a vested interest in the drugs' success. If they was so harmless then why are they not sold over the counter at pharmacies this is what the pharm companies would love but real world data is a lot different to these so called small trialsRead lessRead more

yrreb88

Yeah counter all my points with a link to a random, insignificant … Yeah counter all my points with a link to a random, insignificant website. You sir, are very gullible, please stop taking everything you see on the internet as truth. That website is run by Agora Health Ltd which has a broken website and is a subsidery of Agora Inc. The other subsideries basically promote get rich quick schemes and offer "insider trading tips" to guarantee 100% profit every week. In short, you can not find anything honest or positive about this company or any of its many subsideries. How can you rely on anything like that?Read lessRead more

morty

http://www.thecholesteroltruth.com/

yrreb88

It's complete rubbish yet you don't link to any evidence that shows … It's complete rubbish yet you don't link to any evidence that shows otherwise for any of your claims? It has been proven there is no link between cholesterol and heart disease when, how and by whom? Unless you are a cholesterol denier, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is a link between your risk of cardiovascular disease and increased levels of cholesterol. Note that this is not the same as saying high cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease, just that it increases your risk of getting CVD."So called things like heart disease"?! Are you denying the existence of heart attacks too? oO I seriously hope I have misunderstood you there.Statins block agents (an enzyme) in your liver that produces cholesterol so you're also saying that the body's own cholesterol homeostatic mechanism is essentially flawless and that intervention is never necessary? What sources do you have for these claims?There is a list of all known side effects of statins. You claim real figures show a 50% increase in diabetes is absolute rubbish. What you mean is you have cherry picked a news article showing a study that is contradicted by the consensus. The study involved 9000 people and has been criticised for several limiting factors such as not being an randomised controlled trial and not taking into account confounding factors and other things like diet. How about the larger studies which found a 12% increase in risk? This risk is significantly outweighed by the benefits of reducing your risk of cardiovascular disease. The diabetes risk can be further offset by excercising more, losing weight if necessary (the main cause of diabetes is obesity after all) and a good diet. Another large study showed that a lot of side effects are just down to a nocebo effect. Only a small incidence of side effects were actually down to the statins themselves.All drugs have side effects of course, no one is arguing that but the point is would you rather have a high risk of having a heart attack instead? Unless people have a significant risk that is out of their control like genetics, then there is no reason why people can't limit alcohol, excercise more and eat a decent diet so as to decrease their chances of ever being in a situation to be offered statins.Read lessRead more

dancedar

Really? The US is revising guidelines on cholesterol intake as I write(!) … Really? The US is revising guidelines on cholesterol intake as I write(!) as there's no basis for it, there's tons of studies like http://phys.org/news203844242.html showing it's protective (it's an essential part of the brain and helps ward off dementia...the brain is made of it) and has nothing to do with chd. Seriously. The reason Statins are used to get levels below 210 are because they wouldn't sell enough of them if normal was classed as 240. But 240 is normal, borderline low. If you read one page try this: http://jeffreydachmd.com/cholesterol-lowering-statin-drugs-for-women-just-say-no/ or this http://jeffreydachmd.com/heart-matter-maryanne-demasi-cholesterol-myth/. Phrases like 'Mortality was 5.2 times higher at a cholesterol of 155 compared to mortality at cholesterol of 271' scare me when I see people taking Statins."Replace foods high in saturated fats like sausages, butter, full fat diary and fatty meats with those containing unsaturated fats (mono- and poly-unsaturated), or opt for reduced-fat options – for example, low fat cheeses, low fat yoghurts, vegetable oil based soft spreads, and lean meat" this is literally the worst advice I've ever seen, bar drinking orange juice and having cereal for breakfast.http://chriskresser.com/cholesterol-doesnt-cause-heart-disease & https://www.skillcollector.com/cholesterol-research/ are basic enough for lay reading - https://www.skillcollector.com/sendy/uploads/Cholesterol%20Research%20by%20Skill%20Collector.pdf full researh with linksOxidized cholesterol is a problem, but that comes from eating a crappy diet and not from eating cholesterol itself (as dietary chol has no influence in blood chol). Total cholesterol levels are meaningless.I've been looking at this in depth for about two years now and there's just no evidence that low cholesterol is something to be aimed for. You're only killing yourself, but at least in doing so you'll lose your memory in doing so and forget you were ever told otherwise! Look in to it, it may save your mind - and your life.Read lessRead more

jeczap

sisodiap

Folks, don't vote this cold. Cholesterol is a silent killer. Let this get … Folks, don't vote this cold. Cholesterol is a silent killer. Let this get some heat & if it helps one person adapt their lefestyle on the basis of guidance, it would be well worth it.Read lessRead more

puppiesandkittens09

a bit off the topic, you could try getting an account with the savvy … a bit off the topic, you could try getting an account with the savvy circle if you haven't already. they wowed me with the shipping. 3-4 days. althought I only had 2 campains and that was a couple of months ago.Read lessRead more

MayingPrantis

Lucky you, I NEVER do. And every time I chase it, they blame Royal … Lucky you, I NEVER do. And every time I chase it, they blame Royal Mail....Read lessRead more

puppiesandkittens09

that's odd.... mine take 2 weeks to get here but I do get them.

MayingPrantis

You're lucky with Bzz, they are a total nightmare with me. They keep … You're lucky with Bzz, they are a total nightmare with me. They keep selecting me for trials, I receive confirmation emails and everything and suddenly the stuff 'gets lost'. Read lessRead more