Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18970)	8/26/2010 11:00:15 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

.I challenge you to find one statement I have posted to you that is not based on scientific data. I can't find any statement you made that even attempts to assert a scientific basis. You don't make a lot of statements and the vast majority of those you make seem to be critiques of me. I trust that you don't consider those to have a scientific basis...<g>

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18970)	8/27/2010 12:18:43 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

I challenge you to find one statement I have posted to you that is not based on scientific data. I'm procrastinating this morning so I temporized by engaging in some busywork--I went back and listed each "statement" you made during our earlier discussion. I found forty, which I have listed (some abbreviated to avoid wrap) for your convenience. I found among them only 5 that could have been based on scientific study data, even theoretically. In none of the 5 cases did you actually provide any supporting evidence of that basis, you know, like links or bibliographies. IAFAIK, there is actual scientific evidence for only one of them, that women's HDL runs higher than men's. For your convenience, I have asterisked the five with potential scientific basis. You can see by perusing that list that the substance to needling ratio is quite low as is the focus You can also see that, for an exchange that you fancied to be debate, there isn't even a statement of your position, the most fundamental characteristic of the debate form. I still haven't been able to figure out just what your position was/is other than just general resistance to any assertion I might make. (My position, what started the discussion, was, in case you've forgotten, that statins are "overused" when taken as primary prevention based on elevated LDL.) List of Statements. You made contrary statements but didn't show data.. There should be enough data here for you, if you want the original study it's referenced here and at the bottom.. You seemed to have been quoting older work.. You're more interested in personal kudo's than the discussion at hand.. I asked you for some links like you did me... I doubt you will have learned anything... You're pretty much of fake...sorry The aggressive reduction of LDL is not new, is at least 4-5 years old.... my primary has the paper taped to the wall of his examining room with my concurrence he has adjusted my statin dose to reduce my LDL with a target of 70... my numbers are very close to that.... At that dose, plaque buildup is actually supposed to reverse... You're a great for giving yourself retroactive pats on back... you should have the abtracts I posted but are ignoring the conclusion: I just lost what I spent 10 minutes typing so I'm pissed off... But suffice to say I have posted the conclusion of that paper twice.... you choose to pretend it's not there. it's out there if you want it.. Merry go round doesn't interest me.. Your desperation to save face is palpable... science never takes one result as the final truth.... all conclusions from a study must be verified by another study by someone else... If you're not taking a statin, you're not being very smart... I was on Lipitor for years at 40mg with very low numbers...etc. I've had severe chronic GERD all of my adult live and have had at 7-8 visits to the ER with chest pains.... HDL was the main concern about 20 yrs ago, specifically the cholesterol/HDL ratio. Less than 4 is good. Then we had homocysteine... Easily fixed with B12 and folic acid...therefore no pills to sell there. According to my personal records, HDL became a major metric about 1988. I'll get to the rest of your post later total cholesterol is only secondary consideration... LDL is the primary figure of significance for the general population... to the best of my knowledge, LDL is not usually measured directly but is calculated etc. You want to boost your HDL?.., exercise and red wine. **women's HDL is higher than men's. I'm getting the impression you're objective here is to be a contrarian, with little value added... If you want to manage your health with amateur analysis, be my guest... things are not always as we remember them.... I am confident that I have effectively checked your challenge.