I appreciate your concern, suzeonline...

>>Pericles, if you have high cholesterol... then I humbly suggest you listen to your doctor<<

As I mentioned, we have discussed it on several occasions. (My doctor is a fan of statins, by the way). We have agreed - and we have tried them out - that they are not for me, and have taken a different approach.

We also agree, incidentally, on the lack of any conclusive study on with/without statin mortality rates. And I can guarantee that if there were to appear such a study, it would be waved triumphantly in my face with many an "I told you so".

Modern conventional drugs and surgery medicine is very good at crisis intervention, patching people up after accidents, and more often than not, diagnosis of dis-ease conditions.
Apart from that it is largely a failure. The general state of the health of the population is living, or perhaps half-dead, proof of that.

It is also quite barbaric in that it is informed by the reductionist world-view of scientific materialism which reduces every one to matter only.

Human beings have thus been reduced to little more than thinking/talking assemblages of meat molecules

It is interesting to notice the organized groups of people that actively campaign against "alternative therapies".

First we have the atheists and so called skeptics. They are really dogmatic true believers in the "religion" of scientism, who are fundamentally intolerant of all other perspectives.

Which is quite strange really. Because until the rise of the culture of scientism EVERY other culture in the world was informed by a magical shamanistic perspective. Even original Christianity. In one way or another the majority of the worlds population still adhere to such a magical perspective.

Then there are right-wing religionists such as the odious "catholic" author of the book and website Counterknowledge. A book which has much in common with the old-time "catholic" church that used to have the power to define what was acceptable knowledge, and to thus deal with "heretics" - anyone for the inquisition! Much as totalitarian states always do, including of course the current Islamic theocracies of the Middle East.

Thirdly there are dim-witted Protestant fundamentalists who are always railing against anything to do with the New Age movement.

I remember reading parts of a large book published by the Christian Medical Association which contained critiques of the various "new age" healing methods now available. I forget the title.
The basis of their criticism of each and every technique was that it was not mentioned in the Bible
It was counter to their obviously reductionist Biblically based (mis)understanding of what we are as human beings
It had its origins in Eastern religion concepts such as Chi or Prana

Cholesterol levels are 75% due to hereditary factors, and only 25% diet.

If your levels are slightly high, then a change of diet is often sufficient. However, if your levels are 8 or higher there is no chance that diet alone will do the job.

There is a clear link between Cholesterol and certain forms of heart disease. The use of statins has prolonged millions of lives and there is endless evidence to show this. And simply denying the evidence is sticking your head in the sand.

Pericles, if your doctor is a fan of statins, it is probably for a good reason, and he can only advise you. If you choose to ignore his advice he has no choice but to agree. The same would apply if you wished to smoke.

A homeopath on the loose?
Phwoar, dangerous times, these (munches on fish finger sandwich).
Lock up your daughters.

[Deleted for abuse.]

[reposted to avoid offence]

weareunique - no, my viewpoints are based on evidence. Acupuncture has been exhaustively tested in randomised, double-blind studies, and the results are always the same: it doesn't work any better than placebo.

You also make the mistake of assuming that because something has been done for a long time, that lends it validity: doctors practised bloodletting for centuries, too. And miasma theory - no-one believes that anymore, either ... actually, homeopaths still actually believe miasma theory!

It's interesting to note that people in China overwhelmingly choose western, science-based medicine to 'traditional' medicine (less than %20 of Mainland Chinese use 'traditional' medicine).

'Traditional' in China is the province of the poor and ignorant - in the West, it's the province of the wealthy and ignorant.

King Hazza, I assumed nothing: I merely pointed out that your statement was totally factually wrong.

Pericles, you misunderstand: I'm not 'picking a study'. The Cochrane Review conducts meta-studies of *all* the available literature. It is probably the most highly-regarded, gold-standard of evidence in the medical literature.

In any case, I posted the link, not to make any claims for or against statins, merely to show that you were either being economical with the truth, or utterly ignorant when you claimed that no-one had or ever would conduct a study into whether 'the mortality rate of statin-takers [is] higher, or lower, than that of statin-non-takers'

Interestingly, you quickly replied to me with a link to just such a meta-study as you claimed no-one had or ever would do. I'll generously assume that you suddenly did the research that had previously eluded you (even though you stated, 'Believe me, I have asked. Many times.').

I leave others to draw their own conclusions.