What you need to ask yourself if your doctor has recommended statin therapy. Your values matter. 

I’m sorry. It’s hard to get a new doctor and then realize we have to change. If I can’t trust a doctor by the 3rd encounter, I’m out! My latest rheumatologist ruined on my 2nd visit!

Yeah…. I’m T1D and stopped taking statins about 12 months ago…. Noticeable improvements in blood sugar control once I dropped the statins along with other benefits…. Dr predictably loses it when I say no to statins…. So I ask which is more important, guzzling statins or better control of my T1D…. Answer - don’t take the statins…. Sometimes you can get sense out of a doctor…. It’s how you phrase the questions…. Good luck finding new doctor!

@@brucemckay6615 Good for you! Take care of yourself and don't let those thieves ruin your health. Thanks for commiserating.

@@TiredEmpath Yikes! It's almost like docs want their patients unwell. And if they're on the road to health, they'll prescribe whatever they can to foster illness. Take good care of yourself, Empath.

@@brucemckay6615 Doctors seem to ignore the fact that statins drive up blood sugar and damage the liver. This poison killed my father but, by time he did listen to me, it was too late.

I'd love to hear the results for the 2nd 20 months. Too bad he doesn't see this as a learning opportunity.

The hard calcium is not the dangerous part. So not sure what the Dr.'s point is. Good for you!

@artspark7697 Well, of course, it's not, but it's not exactly healing either unless you like to think that way....I don't. It's a cover-up at best! I prefer to heal my arteries correctly by restoring the focal vitamin C deficiency, not only repairing the artery but removing the calcium build-up, allowing for pliable arteries to maintain nice blood pressure. Calcification just narrows the arteries while decalcification increases blood flow as well.

Please tell me how you reduced your CAC. I just found out I have 372 in my LAD, 0 in all othrr arteries. However, also discovered an ascending aorta aneurysm, normal size is 2.0 cm, mine is 3.6-4.0 cm, surgical intervention typically at 5.5 cm. Do you know if the aorta would rebound to normal size with LAD healed. I'm curious if the higher pressure due to the occluded LAD caused the aorta to bulge. Any thoughts, plus your CAC reductions techniques would be appreciated. Meeting with a Cardiology CNP next week.

@mikejones4308 While I'm not a doctor, I certainly have reversed my CAC with the Linus Pauling Heart Protocol 20-30 grams of Vitamin C ascorbic acid in divided doses per day with Lysine and proline 3-4 grams 2x per day. All in powder form from BulkSupplemets off of Amazon. As far as the Aorta, I saw one study where it shrunk 25%, and chances are that was with a relatively low dose compared to what I'm on. Another good calcium tool is magnesium glycinate 800mg in divided doses as when magnesium is up. Calcium is down. I'd certainly watch the intensity of any exercise. I lost 100 lbs. Just from walking. 10-20,000 steps per day. I am on no medications.

These are great questions. There are a lot of variables to consider but in general, the farther out we look, the higher the risk, so the absolute risk reduction in theory would grow proportionally, assuming the relative risk reduction remains constant. We can extrapolate mathematically over longer time periods though the longer time frame we do that over, the more iffy it becomes. However, some calculators will give a lifetime risk along with 10-year risk. Another thing that one can do is use a risk calculator and simply give your age as it would be 10, 20, etc. years into the future with the same other numbers to see the decade by decade growth in risk. You could calculate the 30 year risk with the results - it's not a simple as adding the three numbers but as an approximation you can do that and get an good idea of the longer term risk. You actually should take the probabilities of NOT having a cardiovascular event for each decade and multiply them together, then subtract the result from 1 to get the remaining risk. The problem is that looking that far ahead is a bit meaningless except in general terms because so many things will change, not just the progression of age. As far as active vs. sedentary, the risk calculators don't consider that, and I think they miss something because they don't use the markers that generally could change and reduce risk when one exercises a lot. For example, none of them use Triglycerides, at least not directly, which is a number which usually will be higher for the more sedentary person. I don't know of any studies (I will look for them) that have compared the risk reduction for active exercisers vs. sedentary lifestyles as far as that benefit goes, though my personal observation is that when I was on statins, they were preventing me from exercising as effectively, which was reducing the effectiveness of the exercise itself.

@@mystatinfreelife I am worried that the 11% risk without, 7% risk with at 10 years, will grow to 25% risk without, 9% risk with after 20 years and 50% risk without, 10% risk with after 30 years. Ie, that the damage is cumulative... sort of like smoking. Your risk of getting lung cancer from smoking at 10 years isn't much different than a non-smokers, but by 20 and 30 years, it skyrockets in comparison. Perhaps the damages of high cholestrol is the same. In the first 10 years nothing much happens except that your plaque buildups are silently and invisibly growing.. so by the time you get to 20 and 30 years you have so much more buildup than a guy on statins that your overall risk becomes many times higher.

I track my fitness in similar ways now, though I wasn't doing it while on statins. Wish I did. I think I would have had similar results.

People still experience cardiac events on statins.

Research carnivore way of eating.

You're in a very different situation (secondary prevention) than what I was in (primary prevention.) It's hard to tell but some data I have seen shows the relative risk reduction for secondary prevention is lower, but the risk is so much higher, so as to make the absolute risk reduction comparable or higher but I need to study it more. If you don't get adverse effects, I'd say follow doctor's advice; if you do get adverse effects, speak to your doctor about alternatives, such as bempedoic acid. My position is always "statin-hesitant" not 100% anti-statin, as there may be situations where it's use is appropriate.

I have no experience in that topic. Perhaps other viewers do.

Yes, quite often my doctor would tell me (when I complained of some new ailment) that it was "to be expected as we get older." They've almost all gone away now. I don't know if the few remaining ones were because of permanent statin damage, or really are age-related.

I haven't looked into that in any detail. My doctor has ordered one for me. I need to really understand what the results mean before I can comment.

Good topic. They for sure do pass the BBB, the lipophilic more so than the hydrophilic. Lots of contradictory info floating around.

Yes, there are a lot more adverse effects; I couldn't list them all because I think RU-vid has an 8 hour time limit on videos.