but first, what I will say applies only to me, not to anyone else.
At a far too young age I had cardiac arrest. That was over 11 years ago. I was very fortunate to be in ambulance for the event and was brought back to start the bonus round of my life. I had minimal to no damage to my heart. Two months later I had a triple bypass.
I stopped smoking. I became a vegan. I run 25 mile a week. I am on no medication.
My cholesterol is regularly tested at 150 to 170. In the beginning 170 was the goal. Then my doc says the rules have changed and 150 is the target. I resisted. Finally, I gave in and for two months took a anti-cholesterol product. Then, out of the blue my left eye goes permanently blurry at the edges. Then, I suffer a stress fracture on my left shin. At that point i say "screw the drugs".
Here's my take: My cardiologist says I am his poster patient. I exercise strenuously and regularly. I eat right. My cholesterol reading are superior. What marginal benefit is gained taking an anti-cholesterol drug?
Yes, I think the pharmaceuticals are pushing the lower readings (150 and below) to protect themselves against law suits. I tell my doc "why do you want to push this on a patient who is already doing all the right things? Why don't you just leave it alone?" I think the doctoring community is in a prevent defense mode against law suits.
We, the patient community are the ones who bear the ultimate burden of lawyers and pharmaceutical marketing campaigns.
Then, there is the other issue of constantly changing finding and studies of drugs and treatment methodologies.
Important Notices: By registering on this website,
visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums and
Journals are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily
represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.