At first blush it appears that this topic has been thoroughly investigated until we see recent challenges to hypotheses that high LDL cholesterol is the main cause of cardiovascular events, that a very low LDL is a good thing, and that long-term statin drugs pose neglible risks to those taking them. If the theoretical and practical framework of the debate is not sound, what should we be looking at? Prevention of inflammation? Liver health? Metabolic weaknesses? Diet and organic nutrition? Lifestyle factors? 

I invite my colleagues and fellow researchers to comment on this vital topic, and bring us to-date on the controversies that still swirl around these questions. Thank you.

Alicia, this is an excellent way to start this discussion, because there is enormous complexity in the makeup and roles of the lipid elements in the human body, and the current practice of meeting a gross target on paper is a little like teaching kids to take tests and forgetting to teach them to think. The body is smart and knows a live element from a synthetic--even adds inflammation to the body when encountering enough of anything synthetic. So, these short term studies loaded with confounds and uncontrolled variables might tell us something in social psychology, but very little in physiologial behavior. I will come back to this topic when I am not traveling and hope we can bring more of our colleagues on RG into the discussion. It is vital that we discover the insidious affects of synthetic statins and what over the long term this means to one's health. Thank you again for a great start!

simvastatin has been found to have most of the side effects and neurotoxicity attributable to these because of which newer Lp LOWERING DRUGS USING VARIOUS MACHANISMS ARE BEING USED TO ENHANCE THE EFFECTS OF TRADITIONAL STATINS WHICH ARE EFFECTIVE 20-40%IN LOWERING LDL cholesterol and further utilizre various machanisms either targeting Apo B or  MTPth microsomal gtriglyceride transfer proteins and currently miR30c is being used to lower MTP with newer agents using to tarhget other enzymes like PCsk9 inhibitors etc.

"and the current practice of meeting a gross target on paper is a little like teaching kids to take tests and forgetting to teach them to think."

Sadly, this is precisely the direction our "leaders" have chosen for education of children.

Generally speaking, it is always a good idea to implement life-style changes* first, whenever possible. Of course, results are never quite as quick or drastic but in the long-run, a much healthier option.

[* Nutritionally balanced varied diet from fresh ingredients (without preservatives), daily or routine physical activities, social interactions etc.]

LIfestyle changes, indeed. You named ost of them, Tausif. I add stop using the microwave oven even for warming. We have tracked the rise incidence of diabetes mellitus II, CVD, and cancer in the US from 1978 to today precisely following the percent of increased use of the microwave oven and pre-prepated food which are so poisonous that all animal studies show the animals die from the substances in time. We are appalled that medicine has bought into America's GMO/High Fructose/Overprocessed food trends by Monsanto and others--it has made America the chronically sickest population of advanced nations, consuming almost 80% of all the world's prescription medication with only 4% of the world's population. The situation goes back to a debauched food supply and increase in GMO high fructose, caffeine, and severe insufficiency in micronutrients and organic foods. When the proper lifestyl changes are made, cholesterol looks good, actually. So we are puzzled as to why this is not the advice the physician is giving to their patients instead of risking other worse problems by giving them toxic medication. 

Thank you, Kaulvinder and Tausif for your keen insights.

Max,

I can write pages worth material as to how things could be improved in a great many number of ways in US but likelihood of it changing anything is zero so I'll spare you the trouble of reading or ignoring it.  ;)

Suffice it to say that in the so-called free market economy, it all comes down to money!

As a physician, if one advises someone the merits of good nutrition and healthy living and lists a number of sensible options based on the individual's circumstances (means listening time will also be involved), how much a physician can reasonably charge for his 1-1.5hr time? But let the person go critical with time and unhealthy living, and this time the physician sees him in a different set of circumstances - same amount time or less, an angioplasty for a clogged artery, few prescriptions and the job is done. The patient is thrilled to pay 10 grand, after all the physician just saved his life. This was just one small example - situation is the same or worse in every major aspect of life.

You talk to the young medical students, they all want to help and heal. By the time they are on rotation as a resident or a fellow, they are already concerned about the loans that have been piling up and soon will need to be paid because tuitions are so high!

You talk to the university administration folks, they cannot help it but raise the tuition some more because it is expensive to retain quality teachers and scientists and the state keeps cutting their budget.

Everyone seems to have their legitimate reasons... guess who pays the price for every inadequacy? 

[Already longer than intended! ]

Max,

I am curious about your comments regarding the use of microwave and ill-effects on health. Please provide references of published credible work.

Thanks. 

Yes, I know what you mean, Tausif---the business of medicine has caused it to veer off course. Healing is what it should be about. 

On microwaving food, there is only old research because all peered research was stopped arbitrarily from about 1989 through 1992 in the free world. All of the independent research up to that point showed vast increases in diabetes mellitus, CVD, and cancer, exactly those chronic conditions that virtually skyrocketed for the first time in US history from 1980 (when only 8% of US households had a microwave oven) to 1990 (when 87% of households had one and was using it for about 25-30% of their cooking at that time)--the upward trajectory continued from there with more and more prepared meals microwaved--until we passed every nation on earth with rates of those and other chronic conditions (there are a few other countries with their own problems, but none on the global scale of ours). Now, you won't find any recent peered research on the effects of microwaving on food--or if you do, it will simply say that vitamins were retained by microwaving better than stove top boiling, etc. But what the authors call nutrition and what I call it are vastly two different things--so were what they were measuring. The core biochemistry of the nutrients we call Vitamin A, B, C, etc. are not the complete nutrients, nor do they exist in dead food. Microwaing shatters the DNA and changes it so that the body's immune system does not recognize it and because it is forced to utlize what it is given it adapts by adding what it can in the way of enzymes, amino acids (the blocks of life if you will). To save space here I am attaching one of my seminar monographs on the topic--I realize it is controversial, but I stand by it firmly and those of our patients who abide by its counsel see improved health--everyone of them. Being unaccepted in the larger arena does not make it not correct. In fact, the Zeitgeists of our day are way off base in a lot of areas, whether it be the way we treat cancer, correct cardiovascular problems, acid reflux, you name it, just about every allopathic remedy today is only about symptomology and nothing about underlying causes. It is not capitalism that brought us to this point, though. It is simply the hijacking of medicine so that it and research are going in two different directions and the losers are the consumers. Capitalism does not excuse the altruistic and ethical goals of medicine. Anyway, I am glad you asked that, and I hope you can add to the body of knowledge and opinion on that. To me, it ranks right up there with the GMO/food additive problem.

Aren't we a bit getting out of commenting the original question?

The best solution for optimal health is to measure blood viscosity.  Incresed blood viscosity and aortic stiffness are the common apthways by which risk factors accelerate atherogenesis.   Increased blood viscosity is treatable by blood donation and optimal hydration, among other things.

lowering miR33 is another alternative which raises HDL  by using antisenseoligonucleotides or the use of newer LIPOPROTEIN synthetic compounds inhibitords which seem to be in phase 2 trials will help prevent use of statins in much lower dose and gene silencing are few newer options although MTP inhibition AND ALL STLL SEEM TO BE IN PHASE 2 TRIALS AND THEYB THEMSELVES HAVE HEPTOTOXICITYandare associated with increased ALT/AST levels.

Intuitively looking at it, global inhibitors of cellular processes and events seems like an excellent recipe for a disaster in the making. These are, after all, molecules that are vitally important for normal functioning of cells, just as is cholesterol. We have not quite reached the stage where we can fine tune their expression/synthesis/distribution in different tissues on "as needed" basis.

Jumping on each new shiny bandwagon historically has proven only one thing conclusively: if you are in the leading edge of the pack, you can make a lot of money! As far as true progress and benefit to health go, that often needs to be reevaluated after the initial hoopla dies down.

PS: Kulvinder, if I may make a suggestion without offending you, please lose the liberal capitalization - most of us are quite capable of reading and comprehending without the distracting effect of frequent capitalization. And those of us, who are not, are not exactly very likely to benefit from your extra efforts.  ;) 

Here are some triglyceride lowering things to do--there are many, but these represent a few of the sure ones cndensed from a couple of sources:

1. Exchanging the worst foods in one's diet for something better. For instance, many people have learned to exchange white potatoes or French fries for sweet potatoes with good results. Exchanging vegetable oil for cold press cocanut oil is another. 

2. Increase your intake of dietary fiber. Many people achieve normal triglyceride levels as well as total cholesterol levels just by eating a bowl of oatmeal each day

3. Start exercising. Exercise is universally good for the body in so many ways including lowering triglycerides naturally.

4. The three targeted nutritional supplements are Omega-3 fatty acids, Tocotrienols (from wheat germ) and Niacin.

5. Take therapeutic grade essential oils Oregano. Cinnamon, and Capsaican (herb).

well max i agree with you that exercizing is essential but think of thse who for some reason either because of debilitating conditions or severe osteoarthritis with old age cant catch up with the physical exercize,even they need somealternative,As far as diet is concerned it is very difficult to ensure that they take only oatmeal or a diet low in triglycerides,people may or may not take supplements of omega 3fatty acids tocotrienols from wheat germ and niacinand other oils you mentioned.As for Tausif thanks for pointing regarding the capital typing which inadvertently i do in between but i have so many physicl disabilities that if you are goingto be told one by one i m sure you will wonder i am still actively practicing my profession,to start with because of astroke i have y left hand partially paralyzed and just use my right and accidentally the caps lock grts pressed then even had a surgery on my legs and have had splipped discs in neck and back which i have got injected atleast 4 times with depot medral  etc etc so excuse me it is not to offend the capabilities of the fa culty  who is highly traINED HERE BUT MY OWN INADEQUACIES -now this got typed in bold although i tried by best to avoid and trying to retype gives me severe shoulderand bakache. 

I understand completely, Kulvinder, and your comments are always welcome. As you may know I subscribe to getting to the root cause of a problem and if drugs are needed because a ready gentle, natural solution is readily at hand, so be it. Like the Father of Western Medicine Hippocrates, I subscribe to "First, do no harm." I think statins in high doses over the long term are dangerous and become more so over time. In each case of serious hyperlipidemia the practitioner needs to determine that cause of problem. The size of the LDL, for instance, is a result of poorly formed and secreted bile, which points to an alkaline liver or one going into distress. Why we are not pointing to the liver in looking for a solution to the LDL/VDL?Triglyceride plague we have today is baffling. Even among the most intelligent among we seem to think of the synthetic statins are harmless and well-accepted by natural systems. All our major studies on the topic are so short term and designed to show the desired outcomes that we fail to see the damage being done in the long term. So, I keep coming back to the question: Why aren't we stressing reduction in the offending lipids by improvements in health? I get a downvote for asking the question and not a single upvote for trying to bring out the answers from my dear colleagues for whom I have the highest of respect. Always, I'm in hopes we will enlarge our vision and see that health is the goal, not synthetic band-aids that produce in the long run a less well population. Again, thank you for your kind comments.

Kulvinder, you have my most sincere apologies. Please ignore my previous comments about capitalization.

A comment about physical limitations getting in the way of exercise and possibly healthy diets  in favor of ready-made pre-packaged food because of convenience: while I agree that in some cases, pre-existing conditions make it difficult but at least in US (and in many countries) obesity alone is becoming a huge issue. One notices, younger children and preteens already looking like as if they are on the path of becoming obese, if not already so. This trend is very troubling and unhealthy. A large majority of these individuals are in this shape because of unbalanced nutrition and lack of sufficient physical activity. 

Tausif, thank you for your comments. In the US the changes in health, and why we have the highest rates of chronic disease of any major nation is because our food supply has become debauched with genetic modification, degermination, synthetic fortification (which is toxic to immunology), and over processed. When we find people breaking away from this milieu of poor health choices we see all the markers, including weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, O2 levels, tirglycerides, all improve. That is why it is puzzling to me (and probably to you, too) why this idea of getting well in a specific manner is so blase to the scientific and medical community today. Have too many of us bought into the picture of Utopia in a package?

I am not sure that if it is entirely "Utopia in a package" picture which drives the sales of convenience food, for one thing, it is more expensive and given that our so-called middle class is getting mixed with the poor, monetary reasons alone should be a cause for reevaluation. The practical situation is fairly complex. It involves the entire life-style of not only an individual, his family, but also the how our society is structured. How we live blends into where we live, how long is our commuting time, how much time and energy we have after our what is approaching to be indentured servitude (perhaps some exaggeration).

As for the ill health effects of a variety of products in our environment, including food additives, it is a catch 22 because large epidemiological studies required to generate convincing data are very expensive and money to conduct them is not easy to find. Ultimately, it is all about $$$.  Some of the laws the  EPA must follow are too basic for public health and it would not look good if our congress revokes or weakens them but their always other ways to skin a cat - they cut the EPA budget, no money, no enforcement. 

As I mentioned earlier, it is all about $$$ and it is made complicated so it cannot be easily changed to what makes sense.

Good observations, Tausif. As a researcher myself I say that many of the things we know and intuitively lean toward are self-evident and really do not require the big research some think we ought to give it. It is the processed and sythetic stuff that is guilty until proven innocent in the world of health. The natural and gentle and organic are our controls, and when we see it through that lens we invariably see which produces the healthiest outcome (smile).

Dear Dr Max, I exercise quite a lot and so I manage to keep healthy.  A statin can slightly increase your HDL, as can exercise.  HDL will protect against heart disease by taking the "bad" cholesterol out of our blood and keeping it from building up in our arteries.   But I heard my doctor prescribe statin to a friend whose total cholesterol level exceeded 7 mmol/L.  (We use those units for measurement here.)

The risks and benefits posed by statins depend on the type of statin as well as the absolute risk of cardiovascular disease. Simvastatin is more problematic with drug interactions that torvostatin (both these drugs are now out of patent and generic in Europe). There is clear evidence that statins decrease total mortality and overall mortality in people with type 2 diabetes and with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, and there is also good evidence that they prevent cardiovascular disease in people with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. As age is the main predictor of cardiovascular risk, most men over the age of 65 are likely to be benefit from the use of statins, the case in women is less well established as they tend to lag 10 years behind men with regard to risk of CVD. Each 1 mol reduction in LDL cholesterol translates into a 10% reduction in CVD mortality and a 20% reduction in incident CVD. You are unlikely to be able to reduce LDL cholesterol by more than 0.3 mmol/d by dietary fat modification unless you decide to become a vegan where you would probably lower you LDL cholesterol by up to 1 mol/L. Weight loss can help lower LDL cholesterol but in practice is difficult to sustain. Currently, statins are prescribed for people estimated to have greater than a 20% risk of CVD over 10 years or who have severe elevations of LDL cholesterol (i.e. familial hypercholesterolaemia. It has however, been proposed that the threshold be lower to 10% risk which would ensnare a larger number into statin treatment. Benefit for the lower threshold is likely to be greatest for individuals who inherit high levels of cholesterol (these would also include people who are carriers of the apolipoprotein E4 phenotype as well as those with familial hypercholesterolaemia).

well the question is statins only offer a 20-40%lowering by the mechanism of action by which they act hence to potentiate theur action in familial hypercolesteremia something is needed like MTP inhibitirs OR others which inhibit destruction ofLDL receptor through which these sttins act namely currently under development inhibotors of pcsk9-norata cd or gene silencing and to decrease hepatotoxicity recently miR30c is being currently investigated as it has functions o lower MTP and thus LDL-C  as microRNA 33 in longterm has shown to undergo tachyphylaxis like phenomenon and starts showing increased fattyacid synthesis  hence human testing postponed till use in primate models tested.

I draw attention to the recent Oxford Study that suggested that 77% of those taking synthetic statins would not have to do so if they indeed ate an apple each day. I subscribe to any approach in healthcare that forfeits the need to take prescription medication. Prescription medication, even the best of the lot, always has side effects. Over time side effects become more dominant. For acute disease they are fast, sure, and generally needed.  But for chronic disease, when the object should be going to the underlying cause (high cholesterol is NOT the underlying cause of anything--it is secondary or tertiary at best) correcting the problem so that prescription meds are not needed is the preferred route. 

the problem with general statements like this that 77%of those taking synthetic statins wont need a do so f they ate an apple a day is some physicians would generalize to coditions like familial hypercholesteremia where external help is definitely needed and feel happy just eating an apple and yet get ill although some of physicians who dont follow up literature dont realize the cause -otherwise have no objection to trying alternatives if posible.

I would respectfully point out to Max Stanley Chartrand that if he read the paper from the Oxford group, it was not the results of a trial it was based on the assumption that eating a piece of fruit would lower risk of cardiovascular disease - they chose an apple as an exemplar. The problem with the study is that they made assumptions that the relationship between low fruit intake and increased risk of cardiovascular disease were causative. Whereas, in fact the relationship is often confounded by cigarette smoking : smokers report low intakes of fruit. Eating more fruit does not influence blood pressure or serum cholesterol or any other markers of risk and there are no trial demonstrating that advice to eat more fruit lowers CVD events. There may well be a threshold level of fruit intake that offers some protection against but it is likely to be low. You are confusing presumptions from observational data with results from randomised clinical trials with clinical outcomes. Although statins may increase the risk of a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes they reduce vascular effects which are the main hazards of type 2 diabetes.

There has been a very good review on the safety of statins by the Oxford group. Anyone interest in side-effects should read it rather than take heed of the poorly informed tittle-tattle above

Finegold JA, Manisty CH, Goldacre B, Barron AJ, Francis DP. What proportion of

symptomatic side effects in patients taking statins are genuinely caused by the

drug? Systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials to aid individual

patient choice. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014 Apr;21(4):464-74. doi:

10.1177/2047487314525531.

With regard to Kulvinder Kochar Kaur remark about PSK. PSK probably only accounts for about 5% of cases of familial hypercholesterolaemia. While the phase 1 trials show the antibody treatment lowers LDL cholesterol, there is as yet no evidence for benefit in terms of clinical outcome. The randomized Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) of ezetimibe plus simvastatin among over 9,000 patients with CKD showed, however, that reducing LDL cholesterol safely reduces the risk of major vascular events. The use of ezetimibe and agent that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption allowed for a lower dose of statin.

The bottom line is that statins reduce the risk of death by 0.5% in primary prevention and by 1.4% in secondary prevention.

"The bottom line is that statins reduce the risk of death by 0.5% in primary prevention and by 1.4% in secondary prevention."

"RESULTS (from the cited study):

Among 14 primary prevention trials (46,262 participants), statin therapy increased diabetes by absolute risk of 0.5% (95% CI 0.1-1%, p = 0.012), meanwhile reducing death by a similar extent: -0.5% (-0.9 to -0.2%, p = 0.003). In the 15 secondary prevention RCTs (37,618 participants), statins decreased death by 1.4% (-2.1 to -0.7%, p 

Thank you both Thomas and Tausif. Both cogent comments from two different perspectives. Thomas I knew this was an observational study--but threw this out there to turn the discussion to possible alternatives. I for one feel we can do better than synthetic statins in the long term view. I see too many statin cases in the US turn into diabetes--getting more and more common. I like nurturing the body's ability to change and heal rather than the very costly synthetic where tradeoffs come into the picture. But I fully respect both viewpoints. Thank you again.

   Statins (vastatiny) at this point are considered to be the main group of drugs used to fight with hypercholesterolemia (HCHS). They literally carried out revolutionary in lipidologii 15 years of application and deservedly recognized as the most effective means of primary and secondary prevention of CORONARY HEART DISEASE and its complications in persons with HCHS. As noted by the renowned cardiologist W.C.Roberts: "Statins for atherosclerosis-the same, as was penicillin for infectious diseases". In 1976, the Japanese scientists a. Endo, m. Kuroda have published studies of metabolic products of Penicillium citrinum mildew musty mevastatina who had the ability to lower the total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL CHOLESTEROL) in the blood of animals and humans. This effect was found to inhibit the activity of key enzyme mevastatina synthesis in the liver of the XC-3-Hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaril-Coenzyme a reductase (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors). At the same time of the metabolic products of Penicillium brevicompactum fungus was isolated antibiotic-kompaktin, possessing characteristics of competitive inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Mevastatiny not found clinical application, but were the prototype of the currently used statins. Being introduced into the human body and to animals, they accumulate mainly in the liver, which inhibit the synthesis of CHOLESTEROL in the content in the cells of the liver and the formation of additional quantities of APO-b, e-receptors on plasma membranes. As a result of the increased capture of LDL to ensure cell gepatocitami XC, necessary for the formation of bile acids, with decreasing levels of LDL and CHOLESTEROL in the blood.   J.s. Rudyk INSTITUTE of Medicine of the Academy of medical sciences

Of more concern of the lay person is the slippery slope that sees the first use of statins. Recently I was sent a letter from my GP suggesting that I should be tested for signs of 'pre-diabetes'... Surly anyone who does not have diabetes is then pre-diabetic when seen in this light. And it is fairly common knowledge that the thresh hold for 'unhealthy' cholesterol levels have been lowered over time. Can anyone tell me if there are different 'optimum' levels for different genders/ages/nationalities? We are not all built the same and what is healthy in one may be unhealthy in another, depending on other factors. 

Statins are intended for long-term use, so in addition to the efficiency of the safety and the likelihood of side effects. Naturally, like any medical means, Statins have clear indications and use restrictions. Numerous side effects in the treatment of statins, often linked with their inefficient use, overdose or intolerance. Complications associated with the use of statin drugs, studied well enough. First of all the side effects of this therapy are associated with gastrointestinal tract (neuralgia, pain in the abdomen, diarrhoea, nausea, exacerbation of GSD, anorexia, increased liver transaminaz in several times. In some patients, treatment with Statins are changes in the central nervous system manifesting as headache, insomnia, dizziness, and fatigue. The most dangerous complications are: pathology of the musculoskeletal system, namely, the Myo (painful muscle spasm) and rabdomilez (for necrosis of muscle cells). With the acquisition of Statins is associated with complications such as blood, urogenital infections, easy failure, alopecia, arthritis. The use of statin drugs is contraindicated in the following conditions: acute pathology of the liver, pregnancy and breastfeeding, allergic to. 

Good point and quesiton, Heather. Of course, we are all of different genetic makeup and fit into a range of normality rather than a one-size-fits-all specificiation. Olga ably reviews what the pharmacologic research says, and mentions the long-term use expectations of statins and the increased likelihood of side effects. I would like to add another consideration and that is economic. I do not know that wholesale/retail costs of synthetic statins are in other countries, but in the US the costs are remarkably high and have become proliferate in usage levels commisurate with someone paying for it. So, there has been no downward driver, and a vigorous public health education program on diet and exercise would actually be immensely more cost effective in lowering the population's biomarker issues such as cholesterol and triglycerides so that the huge costs of a drug and its unintended consequences do not need to dominate the health landscape. 

Heather,

I am not exactly a supporter of using larger than minimally necessary doses of pharmaceuticals. However, getting an oral glucose tolerance test (the way pre-diabetes tends to be diagnosed) is a good idea. If one is diagnosed with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, there certain simpler (relatively speaking) changes one can make in their life-style to delay the clinical onset substantially, possibly even prevent it.

Having all the knowledge is better than avoiding to learn the gravity of situation and potentially regretting it later.

As for statins, yes they reduce cholesterol levels as they ought to but so what; do they change mortality outcome, not really - not nearly in the proportion one would expect from their widespread use. Crestor alone was the 3rd largest revenue generating drug sold in US in 2012 ($4.6 billion); the total market for statins in around $29B.

In addition to making a considerable money for their producers, they may also deteriorate the situation with diabetes... 

As an aside, in time most of our current treatments for conditions that have some propensity of being influenced by our genetic make up, will completely change and will be custom tailored from which an individual may optimally benefit. Most of our current treatments are a generalized shot gun approach. An excellent example of this trend is cancer treatment at Dana Farber and Vanderbilt U where every patient's genome is fully sequenced to learn about various mutations to customize therapy for that individual. Likelihood of this happening in my lifetime is quite high and many of the pharmaceutical sledge hammer will die an unceremonious death. 

Throughout this discussion has been a recurring theme that goes back to the original question: The side and interaction effects of taking a synthetic drug, rather than teaching and motivating patients how to enjoy better health have become the conundrum of the healthcare field. Tausif ably brought up the diabetes explosion that besets the US--synthetic statin drugs along with most hypertensive and antidepressant drugs (all a very common prescribing milieu today) ALL contribute to that explosion. All of this is a formula for eventual medical bankruptsy on a grand scale. Why can't we instead put our focus in motivating the population into changing eating and lifestyle habits that cause their diabetes and other chronic conditions? Why the pause of silence when such is suggested? Have we become less concerned about health and more concerned about the business of health? That is something I would like to see discussed. It is time to change the Zeigeist of our times and become more inlighteded in using the knowledge we have today. 

Niacin can reduce cholesterol without major side effects.

Yes, we haven't mentioned niacin nor COQ10, or even Red Yeast Rice, for that matter. And I am wondering about the possible implications on the newly discovered PQQ and its effects on hyperlipidemia. 

A mixture of niacin , Red Yeast Rice , Omega 3 can help lower cholesterol substantially.

Yes, and at a fraction the cost of synthetic statins or side effects, and we wonder aloud why this is not being pursued by mainstream medicine, but then, there likely no reimbursement codes for such prescribing pattern, nor best practice standards inclusion, in doing so.

i still want to understand howmicrowaing is hazardous for food as have not come across any articles and in what sense does it change dna TO BE NOT ABLE TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE BODIES immune system as we all are used yto atleast heatinfg food if not extensively cooking and to what g\degree of microwaving is harmful for these foods to cause any deleterious side effects to be given up as unless we give itup we cant convince our patients to do the same..besides adding niacin and omega acids to foodsupplementation.

Kulvinder, you won't find any articles except by a few of us stalwarts who pay no attention to conventional wisdom and the orders of agencies who nixed all research on food safey and microwaving back in 1989 and afterwards. So it is no wonder you don't find it. But I will add my seminar monograph on that topic and let you study it out. It is indisputable that microwaving is a violent form of cooking and that nothing lives through it, absolutely nothing live coming out of the microwave after a certain period of time (usually enough to cook it through and through). Who knows, maybe you will be one of brave souls that breaks the taboo and actually runs a modern day study on the question. But I still say if anyone wants to be truly healthy, they won't microwave. Thank you for bringing this up.

A layman's PoV (Point of View): Life causes death! Profundus Maximus

Microwaving probably does the same as any severe cooking and more. BBQ and burnt toast are blamed for creating similar carcinogens as well. Taste supercedes! Uncooked whole foods in places like India would cause severe stomach ailments for the uninitiated due to ordinary bacteria in the water systems. Besides, the excessive antibiotic use in Urban Indian populations has created an additional challenge of  potentially poorer autoimmune response as well as mutating microbes.

Let us take the specific instance of my family of non-smoking, vegetarian, Brahmin, teatotalling lineage from millennia with no microwave until recently. Dad - triple bypass, diabetes, cholesterol, BP. Mom - colon cancer, BP. Before microwave! This community is plagued with a hoard of heart diseases!

My postulation: 

• High carbohydrate intake.
• Low nutritional content due to over cooking without microwave.
• Low protein & fiber content.
• Stressful personality traits.

Pertaining to the topic, I've successfully used Ginger (3-5 grams per day) & Turmeric (1-2 grams per day) to obviate the need for statins in my case that were prescribed to me nearly 5 years ago along with actos and BP medication. My parents are on ginger. My son is on ginger. I've even got my unbeliever wife on turmeric voluntarily :-)  I'd encourage others with no known allergy to ginger or turmeric to try as well. It was simple and cost effective using capsules from the Vitamin Shoppe. The turmeric was significantly more expensive than the ginger capsules in the US. It seems to be the other way around in India. The side-effects of both these natural "statins" are amazingly miraculous. I've switched since March 2014. Last blood test was perfect on a regular microwave & some "out of home" (fast-food and restaurant) inclusive diet. I'm due for another blood test in April. Let's see!

I also intend to use real time XRD (X-ray Diffraction) imaging techniques to quantify the Nanostructural changes in food matter as a result of microwave cooking. I need to think how. That may be a good idea for the Denver X-ray Conference in August 2015.  Suggestions would be welcome.

Watching what you eat is important! Thinking about it, is even more so. We do not use the microwave for cooking. However, I'll certainly reconsider and moderate my use of the microwave for heating after this exposition :-) Thanks!

Max! "microwaving is a violent form of cooking and that nothing lives through it". Does this include the "bad bugs"? I know of the technique being used for neutralizing medical waste.

Yes, Ravi, it takes a lot of microwaving to kill bacteria in meat or anything dense. But the damage that microwaving does that no other cooking method does is the violence, the unbelievable shattering of DNA and total destruction of mitochondria, amino acids, and anything with ions. All independent research on microwaving safey was stopped  in  the US in 1989, so of course the literature does not pick up on this. In the 1980s we thought the smallest unit of lfe was the atom and its components-- but much more has been discovered since then. But the larger point I'm making on this is that patients at our clinic who microwave demonstrate more chronic disease, heal slower, and almost never overcome metabolic problems, while those that stop microwaving make fuller, faster recoveries. 

To provide a better view of the discussion on microwaving, I offer a two-page monograph as follows (I apologize that the graphics and formatting are missing entirely in pasting it into the text, but makes it easier to access:

DigiCare® Monograph Series

But What’s Wrong with

MICROWAVING?

Max Stanley Chartrand. Ph.D. (Behavioral Medicine)

DigiCare® Behavioral Research

Introduction: Public health researchers have tried mightily to explain why every category of chronic disease in the US is at pandemic propor-tions and getting worse by the day. Diabetes Type II (DMII), Cardiovas-cular disease (CVD), Cancer, Neuropathies, and now Alzheimer’s dis-ease (AD) have all grown manifold since 1970 and each disease has spawned huge investor-owned industries that would likely collapse over-night if cures were as simple as changing one’s diet or cooking method. At current rates of growth, healthcare costs are projected to consume up to 22-24% of our nation’s entire economy by 2016 (now at 20%!). Our opinion of causes of the current state of health decline in the US are the following trends: 1) an over-processed, genetically modified, and micro-nutrient-deficient food supply; 2) chronic semi-dehydration coupled with increased caffeine intoxication; 3) increased environmental toxins; 4) sedentary lifestyles and sleep disorders, 5) increased drug and alcohol addictions; and 6) a diet that is largely microwaved. This monograph explores why health conscientious families and individuals will want to refrain from microwaving, even for warming of their food.

Two Schools of Thought

Today, there are essentially two schools of thought on the current health scene in the US. On one side are those who argue that microwaving is the best cooking method ever, that GMOs are healthy for you, including high fruc-tose corn syrup (HFCS), that high caffeine is essentially harmless, and there’s not a dime’s worth of difference be-tween synthetic nutrients and those occurring naturally and organically. The other camp, which is growing steadily, is a movement away from microwaving, using instead more fresh fruits and vegetables, convection, steaming, grilling, crockpot, etc. as preferred cooking methods; organic nutri-tion, hydration, moderation in caffeine, and abstinence from anything harmful to the body.

Empirical evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the latter camp as we witness diabetes mellitus, neuropathies, CVD (including hypertension), arthritis, and most cancers resolve dramatically when eating more organically, hydrat-ing, chelating, etc. Sleep disorders are resolved and infec-tions and injuries heal faster. Yet the controversy still rages on, with the “official consensus” judging those of us who espouse natural and organic as complete heretics, at best.

On the pro-microwaving/GMO/synthetic side, billions in government and vested interest dollars are spent funding “research” has been designed with short timelines, closed systems analysis, and often fails to recognize biological factors. Meanwhile, the humble camp of scientists and practitioners on the natural/organic side receive practically no such funding, conducting much smaller but more reveal-ing studies than the well-heeled crowd. Let’s review what the humble camp has to say on the matter—and then the reader can decide who is correct on microwaving food.

Health Consequences of Microwaving

First, microwaving reportedly alters and destroys amino acids and covalent bonds of DNA in the food, the building blocks of life (i.e. the “microwave effect”—see http://www.rfsafe.com/archive/research/rf_hazards/dna_damage/microwave_effect.htm for a more complete treatment of this topic). In one study it was suggested that during microwav-ing certain amino acids were converted into their carcino-genic and toxic d-isomer cousins. Nothing live survives mi-crowaving, save some dreadful salmonella and e Coli bac-teria. This causes your immune system to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines that bring inflammation and the conditions that arise from inflammation and acidosis (perhaps 80% of all chronic disease results from inflamma-tion!). If you are wondering how this affects an otherwise healthy individual, look at your before/after changes in C-reactive protein scores (an inflammatory measure), triglyc-erides, and A1C scores (a hemoglobin/oxygen measure) in clinical blood tests when refraining from microwaving. The results can be quite stunning, as will be your overall health.

Microwaving food also causes complex carbohydrates to be converted into simpler carbohydrates, which can spike one’s blood sugar, raise triglycerides, and secrete too much fat-preserving insulin, while shutting off fat-burning glycogen. The result is hyperinsulinemia, arguably the big-gest driver behind the obesity and diabetes pandemics.

Only synthetic nutrition survives in tact during microwav-ing, as nutrition that is organic soon becomes inorganic. As mentioned above, the violent “microwave effect” on the DNA can make food “foreign” to the human digestive and immunological system, taking longer to digest and increas-ing allergies, in general. For certain, the body knows the difference between microwaved food and that prepared by other means, as evidenced by exploding rates of metabolic and digestive disorders seen in microwave consumers.

Because microwaved food must be reconstructed by the body by borrowing amino acids and enzymes, it can cause corresponding amino acid depletions in the precursors for Preparing Food for a Healthier LifestyleWithout Microwaving

serotonin (mood control), melatonin (sleep/wake cycle), and dopamine (motor control and tremor). These hormonal interruptions are increasingly evidenced by rising levels of abnormalities, such as depression, anxiety, sleep

disorders, and tremor. Serotonin’s main role is in food-tonutrition

synthesis and to aid in facilitating glucagon and insulin secretions. The disruption of serotonin, therefore, causes nutritional and metabolic abnormalities, including a rise in sugars being converted into triglycerides in the liver.

This is why SSRI and other anti-depressants can actually

cause diabetes and weight gain—since they also distort

the prominent role of serotonin without rectifying the real

underlying causes of the depression for which they were

prescribed.

Further, we find that microwaved food requires the body

to spend an extra 2-3 hours to digest compared more

healthily prepared meals. As mentioned above, that is because

the body’s immune system essentially suspends the

food-to-nutrition synthesis functions while sorting out what

has been ingested. This, in turn, can cascade into acid reflux

(because the pyloric sphincter will not open until the

pancreas has done its work), interruption of the citric acid

cycle, elevated triglycerides and LDL cholesterol, and

chronic conditions like Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), etc.

Others have suggested that cooking meat in the microwave

oven causes it to go into a kind of “rotting” process

through destruction of nucleoproteins. This, in turn, causes

the digested (and especially undigested) meat proteins to

breakdown into cytotoxins and uric acid, setting off even

more chronic disease. Metal and plastics are often added

to packaged microwaved foods to simulate conventional

cooking. While the altered taste and texture may fool you, it

does not fool your immune system.

Likewise, pets’ health degrades substantially when eating

from microwaved food, developing serious candida

yeast and other disorders. Many veterinarian physicians

are concerned about pets being fed the same overprocessed,

synthetically fortified, and degerminated microwaved

foods their owners eat. For such increases risks of

cancer and other human-like conditions in pets!

Of great concern, also, is that baby formulae and/or

Mother’s milk heated in plastic bottles in the microwave is

unsafe. Furthermore, dangerous levels of Bisphenol A

(BPAs) found in today’s microwavable food packaging have

been linked to cancer, developmental disorders, diabetes,

early puberty, and obesity in children. Some state health

departments warn the public of these potential dangers.

In addition, every safety manual on warming of human

blood for transfusions that we have examined says never

use a microwave to warm the blood. This quiet affirmation

that microwaving of blood is dangerous reinforces the thesis

of the “microwave effect” even if it cannot be fully explained

by scientists—many know it exists.

Before many governments clamped down and forbid

further studies on safety of being exposed to microwave

ovens, several early studies reported what has been called

“microwave sickness” in the literature: headache, dizziness,

eye pain, sleeplessness, irritability, anxiety, stomach pain,

nervous tension, inability to concentrate, hair loss, appendicitis,

cataracts, sterility, and cancer. Many microwave ovens

in use today reportedly leak radiation as a result of defective

doors and insulation.

Chronic and long-lasting symptoms from using microwave

ovens have also been reported variously as adrenal

exhaustion, ischemic heart disease, increased cancer cell

formation, and long-term digestive disorders. Gradual

breakdown of elimination systems in the body.

More important, as an adjunct to every good

health program, are some guidelines on cooking:

 Use a convection oven in place of microwaving (see

photo pg. 1) for convenience and for safer cooking

 Eat a diet comprised of at least 50% fresh fruits and

vegetables, whole grains, and nuts

 Steam vegetables when needed, never boil—if one

must boil, use as little water as possible w/ low heat

 Use extra virgin olive oil and butter; avoid canola oil

and other plasticized or over processed oils

 Insist that restaurants do not microwave your food

 Reduce or eliminate caffeinated drinks; drink water

 Avoid GMO high fructose corn syrup and artificial

sweeteners (Stevia is both safe and organic)

 With the help of your health professional, reduce

prescription medications as soon as underlying

causes have been addressed and biomarkers return

to normal without the use of medication

Observe these and other health guidelines

as recommended by the SIRCLE®

Method and watch you and your family

become optimally healthy again!

References & Resources

Chartrand, MS, (2010), How to Raise Your Body’s pH, Casa Grande, AZ: Digi-

Care Behavioral Research.

Chartrand, MS (2013). Introducing Dr. Mitochondria, (DVD Version) Casa

Grande, AZ: DigiCare Behavioral Research.

Davis DR (February 1, 2009). "Declining fruit and vegetable nutrient composition:

What is the evidence?" American Society of Horticultural Science

George DF, Bilek MM, and McKenzie DR (2010). Non-thermal effects in the

microwave induced unfolding of proteins observed by chaperone binding.

Havas M (2012). "DECT phone affects the heart!"

Health effects of microwave radiation (Western view). "History of microwave

ovens" Green Health Watch, undated.

Kakita Y, Kashige N, Murata K, Kuroiwa A, Funatsu M and Watanabe K.

"Inactivation of Lactobacillus bacteriophage PL-1 by microwave irradiation"

Kidmose U and Kaack K. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica B 1999:49(2):110-117

Lee L. (12/9/1989). "Health effects of microwave radiation-microwave ovens,"

Lancet

FDA (undated). “Microwave oven radiation," U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Microwave oven and microwave cooking overview," Powerwatch

Microwave ovens: A danger to your health?" (January 26, 2010) Nutritional and

Physical Regeneration

Penn State U (2002). "DNA and the microwave effect", http://www.rfsafe.com/

archive/research/rf_hazards/dna_damage/microwave_effect.htm.

Quan R, et al. (2012). "Effects of microwave radiation on anti-infective factors in

human milk," Pediatrics 89(4 part I):667-669

Rust S and Kissinger M (November 15, 2008). "BPA leaches from 'safe' products"

Journal Sentinel Online.

Sage C. "Reported biological effects from radiofrequency non-ionizing radiation"

Wave-Guide.org

Song K and Milner J A. (2001). "The influence of heating on the anticancer properties

of garlic," Journal of Nutrition 2001;131(3S):1054S-57S

Thomas W. (2013). "Cooked" Alive.com

Vallejo F, Tomas-Barberan FA, Garcia-Viguera C (2010). "Phenolic compound

contents in edible parts of broccoli inflorescences after domestic cooking"

Villablanca E (December 19, 2007) "Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation: Their

difference and possible health consequences.

Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Abe K, Tamura Y, and Nakano Y, (1998). J Agric

Food Chem Feb 26 1998;46(4):1433-1436.

Max! It would be good to consider using PDF attachments to the comment in the future. This way we could all have the added advantage of the graphics. Thanx Max

Good suggestion--the graphics are not really that important on this particular one, Ravi. I am attaching the pdf file for it here. Many practitioners are requesting reprints for their practices lately, as they are finding the same things we find. Thanks again for your always appreciated comments!

In light of earlier comments on side/interaction affects of synthetic statins and other drugs on the market, here are a few references to consider:

Clinically Significant Statin Drug Interactions. Pharmacist's Letter 2012; 28(4):280405.

Erlund I, Meririnne E, Aro A. Plasma kinetics and urinary excretion of the flavanones naringenin and hesperetin in humans after ingestion of orange juice and grapefruit juice. J Nutr 2001; 131(2):235-41.

McKenney JM. Pharmacologic characteristics of statins. Clin Cardiol 2003; 26(4 Suppl 3):III32-8.

Dorian P. Clinical pharmacology of dronedarone: implications for the therapy of atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 2010; 15(4 Suppl):15S-8.S

Another item we have tracked in an upward trend in the US population that would have a marked affect on blood lipids is the incidence of Alkaline Liver. This needs to be addressed, and one of our concerns is that if physicians routinely use the risk-prone statins to address the symptoms of Alkaline Liver and not the underlying causes, the trend will continue until it engulfs most of the population. How do we approach this?

A couple of references to the problem:

http://www.nurseslearning.com/courses/nrp/labtest/course/section6/index.htm

http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/hepatic_and_biliary_disorders/drugs_and_the_liver/liver_injury_caused_by_drugs.html

For your perusal, perhaps a direct result of a combination of shortsightedness mixed with greed permitted in our society or simply hyperventilation of liberal press:

The issues surrounding G.M.O.s — genetically modified organisms — have never been simple. They became more complicated last week when the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup, probably causes cancer in humans. Two insecticides, malathion and diazinon, were also classified as “probable” carcinogens by the agency, a respected arm of the World Health Organization. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/opinion/stop-making-us-guinea-pigs.html?mabReward=A4&_r=0

Thanks, Tausif, for an enlightening article. This is far more prevalent than most people realize. Without a doubt if it kills the animals it is not safe in the long-run for human consumption. We see this same paradigm in animal studies on every single artificial sweetener (Stevia is not artificial and is safe), and in every independent animal study on GMO high fructose, showing that all gain weight and fatty tissue around the heart even in small quantities (contrary to the oft repeated rebuttal by vested interests who would like us to think "the body doesn't know the difference"--it does and we are a sicker people because we tend to ignore this fact).  This applies to so many "approved" food additives and medications that the list is as exhaustive as it is pervasive. Thank you again for bringing this to the discussion.

The best natural option will be the flax seed oil 1 tbl spoon each day directed to lower choresterol and enrich the organism by Omega 3

Yes, flaxseed for the DHA side and cold water (non-commercial/non-mercury bearing) fish for the EPA side of the biochemical solution, Marianne. We find both are important in the armamentarium of good health practice. Thank you. 

Optimal Health Solutions Medical Clinic, a suitable destination for any medical and health related concerns

This website is very useful

http://optimalhealthsolutions.co/ 

There so many safer ways to reduce LDL choleserol and triglycerides and increase HDL that it is shocking that we aren't talking about them more. Synthetic statins are very dangerous in the long-run, so much damage that is totally unnecessary. Change of diet, refraining from microwaving even for warming of food, eating more fresh fruits and vegetables, and with a properly calibrated metabolism, we see LDL go to the floor and HDL go to 90 or higher. There seems to be a mistaken notion in American medicine that HDL should be limited to 57--that is crazy as it is erroneous. When our patients to 90 or higher, their diabetes resolves and they are healthier than ever.

Excellent point, Irene. Actually all of the natural statins are safe and gentle and do a wonderful job of increasing HDL and lowering the bad kind of LDL. But an entire cottage industry has been built around dangerous statins by the drug companies and at some point governments are going to protect their populations by banning them.

Many independent researchers and practitioners in the US are adamantly opposed. We see both the macro and micro effects to the population, the increase is cancer, dementias, and heart muscle damage, an increase in pacemakers, ablation surgeries, and stents--and a dramatic increase of dependency on multiple medications once they are put on statins. The damage to leg muscles and lower body strength is well know. Lesser known, but more vital to our understanding, is the damage to heart muscles. CoQ10 is an essential vitamin and is blocked by statins, not only in the leg muscles but every muscle in the body, including and most especially the heart muscle. And we haven't even touched the liver cancer cases we see as a result of long term statin use.

This link speaks of some of the issues dealing with statins and muscle damage...there is another that deals with the fact that routine blood tests do not expose that damage.

https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2018/08/13/can-statins-cause-myositis-irreversible-muscle-damage/