On 04/08/2023 23:56, RustyHinge wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 19:41, Mike Fleming wrote:
>> On 31/07/2023 17:31, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Another friend of many years had high cholesterol, and was put on
>>> statins.
>>> Over a year he changed from being a very active guy to being close to a
>>> shambling wreck, who was also trying to cope with his 90-year-old mother
>>> who had dementia. I suggested he came off the statins, and in weeks he
>>> began to return to his old self, and much more able to cope with his
>>> mum.
>>>
>>> A lifetime smoker, drinker, unwise food eater, and motorcyclist, he
>>> lasted
>>> to the age of 77.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>
>> Oh well, that's converted me. I shall throw my statins in the bin
>> straight away.
>>
>> Fucking anecdotes. Load of fucking bollocks.
>
> I take 90 mg Atorvastatin daily and I haven't noticed any difference in
> anything. I haven't measured anything before and after, but no-one else
> has noticed any difference in my actions either.

This tallies with what I put in my posting a few minutes ago.
Ie. Statins can maintain the status quo - no more nor less.

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

On 03/08/2023 16:35, Ace wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 13:10:34 +0100, Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> I know you and J have lived and breathed this stuff for decades. But
>> one would have to very charitable to argue that the pharma industry
>> and compliant doctors haven't contributed at all the opiod crisis in

> Anyone using opiodes over an extended period will be aware of the

Opioid?
I'm not really following this but can we at least have some consistency
in (miss-)spelling plz - so I know that you are talking about what I
think you are talking about?
Ta.

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

On 04/08/2023 16:13, Sqirrel99 wrote:
> Ace wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 13:14:24 +0100, Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Hog <york996@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Generally speaking all that's required is daily exercise, a balanced
>>>> low carb diet of meat, fish and veg, a limited calorie intake, keep
>>>> mad people at arms length, surround yourself with good natured
>>>> people, don't do a job you hate, excise stress.
>>> This might be the most accurate and reasonable thing you've ever
>>> posted :-)
>>
>> Escept for the lactose intolerance just pointed out by Simon. I know
>> people who get IBS-like symptoms from milk, whether they know they've
>> consumed it or not, so it's not entirely psychosomatic, although I
>> agree that a great many people avoiding dairy don't actuall suffer
>> from a physical intolerance, just a mental one.
>
> Only around 40% of the worldwide population continue to produce lactase
> into adulthood (and hence the ability to digest lactose) - mostly
> Western Europeans, which may be related to the experience of Simon's
> Japanese aquaintance.

Yes, and even western europeans can lose it later in life...
:-(

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 12:22:52 UTC+1, chrisnd @ukrm wrote:
> On 03/08/2023 19:48, Stephen Packer wrote:
> > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 19:26:48 UTC+1, Hog wrote:
> >
> >> Like being a T1, some people will be born with the problem and life will fuck them up without modern medicine.
> >> Statin and 75mg aspirin has no downside and considerable upside for lots of over 50's
> >
> > I don't know if that's completely true. My doc's been trying to get me to take statins to lower my cholesterol (even
> > though it's at a perfectly reasonable level). When I asked what the downsides were I was told 'lower leg pain'.
> > Given that I've had a hell of a year of pain from RA and gout I'm not that keen to add another ailment.
>
> Interesting. My doc says statins won't make things better (by
> themselves) but they will stop them getting worse!
> I'm still unconvinced either way but the fact that some (not all) people
> get (bad) side effects is undoubted.

Sloppy writing on my part; a *risk* of lower leg pain in a minority of people taking it was what was actually
said. So some, not all, and a minority at that.

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 12:13:48 UTC+1, Champ wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 07:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Hog <yor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

<snip>
> >A competent unsullied Democratic candidate would have beaten Trump. He was only a protest vote.
> >It was an act of incredible chutzpah by the owners of the Dem party to field Clinton, not least for many of their own members. America was disgraced, reduced to a laughing stock, by Bill Clinton. Hillary covered for him and Me Too was in full swing by 2016. Those two candidates drove 4% of the vote to Green/Independent, many Democrats. Voter turnout fell from 57% for Obama to 55ish%.
>
> I'm not really sure why I'm bothering to reply. Hillary Clinton was an
> incredibly strong candidate. Pretty much any democrat would have
> struggled, not least because a significant portion of rascist white
> america wanted to get its own back on having to have a black
> president.

I think there's truth on both sides. I was in the states just prior to the election
(California) and at a couple of events (car things; autocross and an autojumble)
there were a number of people wearing anti-Hillary tshirts.

I think any Democrat would have struggled for the reasons you give. But a white
male candidate would have had an easier path than Hillary, for lots of reasons.
(Sexism, connection to Bill, rumours of financial misbehaviour in the past
etc. etc.)

<snip>

> >Now the tables seem to have turned, but jeez, someone need to kick this entire fucking gerontocracy into touch, 65 would be a perfectly reasonable age limit to stand for first term. As 42 of 46 Presidents have been. That's considered an age limit for commercial pilots and navy captains. The 22nd Amendment was 1951, past time for an update.
>
> Your stats don't reflect the significant increase in life expectancy
> (along with compression of morbidity) that occured since the 19th
> century. Pilots and navy captains needs fast reflexes, which is not a
> requirement for political leadership. In fact, I might argue that the
> opposite is the case - decisions made in high office need to be
> considered.

I agree speed of decision making isn't as important away from heavy machinery...
But what about the ability to work long days (more than 16 hours), skip nights sleep
etc. Something that I did regularly in my 20s, 30s and 40s but it just got too hard
in my 50s.

I just can't believe that Biden makes a better president in his late 70s than he would
have in his 40s or 50s; and yes I know you learn a lot that lets you work smarter but
even so...

Also, in the UK, while I think Starmer's done a great job at recovering the Labour party
a bit of me wonders... he'll be 62 by the next election, 67 going into the one following that.
Surely it would be better to hand the mantle over to someone in their 40s to give them a
fair crack at not looking like an old fart in 2029 or whenever. There are five shit years ahead
for the government, the last thing you need is the figurehead being utterly fucked (which he
probably will be; look how much Blair aged during his ministries and he was a far younger man).

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 12:30:23 +0100, "chrisnd @ukrm"
<chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:

I was only trying to use the same terminology as I was quoting
from,given that it's not a correct term the spelling is the least of
its problems. From now on, just to please you, I'll stick with
Opiates. OK?

--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 12:25:27 +0100, "chrisnd @ukrm"
<chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 04/08/2023 23:56, RustyHinge wrote:
>> On 04/08/2023 19:41, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh well, that's converted me. I shall throw my statins in the bin
>>> straight away.
>>>
>>> Fucking anecdotes. Load of fucking bollocks.
>>
>> I take 90 mg Atorvastatin daily and I haven't noticed any difference in
>> anything. I haven't measured anything before and after, but no-one else
>> has noticed any difference in my actions either.
>
>This tallies with what I put in my posting a few minutes ago.
>Ie. Statins can maintain the status quo - no more nor less.

The likelhood of you being wrong is why I'm giving them a go.

--
Colin Irvine
FJR1300A

On 05/08/2023 13:51, Ace wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 12:30:23 +0100, "chrisnd @ukrm"
> <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> I was only trying to use the same terminology as I was quoting
> from,given that it's not a correct term the spelling is the least of
> its problems. From now on, just to please you, I'll stick with
> Opiates. OK?
>
Ta. I am easily confused.
:-)
Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

Stephen Packer <stephen.packer@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c6c636e3-e1c8-4cfe-9442-4cd3e76aa404n@googlegroups.com:

> Also, in the UK, while I think Starmer's done a great job at
> recovering the Labour party a bit of me wonders... he'll be 62 by the
> next election, 67 going into the one following that. Surely it would
> be better to hand the mantle over to someone in their 40s to give them
> a fair crack at not looking like an old fart in 2029 or whenever.
> There are five shit years ahead for the government, the last thing you
> need is the figurehead being utterly fucked (which he probably will
> be; look how much Blair aged during his ministries and he was a far
> younger man).
>

with such a skewed, elderly demographic do you think they would vote for
someone as young as Wes Streeting (40) or Angela Raynor (43)?

Back in 1997, Blair, born in 1952, was pretty close to the dominant boomer
generation.

Starmer is a month older than me and considered a bit of a whippersnapper
by most of the boomer generation. Maybe Yvette Cooper would be a better
prospect for 2029? She's gained a lot of political capital as chair of the
Home Affairs Select Committee.

On 05/08/2023 14:15, Colin Irvine wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 12:25:27 +0100, "chrisnd @ukrm"
> <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2023 23:56, RustyHinge wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2023 19:41, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh well, that's converted me. I shall throw my statins in the bin
>>>> straight away.
>>>>
>>>> Fucking anecdotes. Load of fucking bollocks.
>>>
>>> I take 90 mg Atorvastatin daily and I haven't noticed any difference in
>>> anything. I haven't measured anything before and after, but no-one else
>>> has noticed any difference in my actions either.
>>
>> This tallies with what I put in my posting a few minutes ago.
>> Ie. Statins can maintain the status quo - no more nor less.
>
> The likelhood of you being wrong is why I'm giving them a go.
>

Report back your *&^%$ experience Colin.

Might even give them a whirl again myself if you don't get the brain fog
and TATT.

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:40:08 +0100, Pete Fisher
<peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 05/08/2023 14:15, Colin Irvine wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 12:25:27 +0100, "chrisnd @ukrm"
>> <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/2023 23:56, RustyHinge wrote:
>>>> On 04/08/2023 19:41, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well, that's converted me. I shall throw my statins in the bin
>>>>> straight away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fucking anecdotes. Load of fucking bollocks.
>>>>
>>>> I take 90 mg Atorvastatin daily and I haven't noticed any difference in
>>>> anything. I haven't measured anything before and after, but no-one else
>>>> has noticed any difference in my actions either.
>>>
>>> This tallies with what I put in my posting a few minutes ago.
>>> Ie. Statins can maintain the status quo - no more nor less.
>>
>> The likelhood of you being wrong is why I'm giving them a go.
>>
>
>Report back your *&^%$ experience Colin.
>
>Might even give them a whirl again myself if you don't get the brain fog
>and TATT.

I will, though goodness knows when my next checkup will be.

--
Colin Irvine
FJR1300A

"chrisnd @ukrm" <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote in
news:kj6pt7F794oU3@mid.individual.net:

> This tallies with what I put in my posting a few minutes ago.
> Ie. Statins can maintain the status quo - no more nor less.
>

that's really not the case for sub-sections of the population

if you have hypertension or type 2 diabetes there is strong evidence that
statins *reduce* the risk of a stroke. This is not maintaining the status
quo, this is an improvement in outcomes.

this is entirely different to prescribing statins due to raised cholesterol
without any other risk factors, which is a dubious practice in my non-
clinical but informed view.

On 05/08/2023 14:44, wessie wrote:
> "chrisnd @ukrm" <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:kj6pt7F794oU3@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>> This tallies with what I put in my posting a few minutes ago.
>> Ie. Statins can maintain the status quo - no more nor less.
>>
>
> that's really not the case for sub-sections of the population
>
> if you have hypertension or type 2 diabetes there is strong evidence that
> statins *reduce* the risk of a stroke. This is not maintaining the status
> quo, this is an improvement in outcomes.
>
> this is entirely different to prescribing statins due to raised cholesterol
> without any other risk factors, which is a dubious practice in my non-
> clinical but informed view.
>
>

Quite.

That risk calculator concentrates the mind, though in my case the damage
may have already been done.

The last few years the surgery have accepted my "can't be doing with the
(perceived by me) side effects" argument, but that countdown clocks tick
inexorably boosts the score. Then, as the years pile on the percentage
tends towards 100% or divide by zero error eventually I suppose.

Funny old thing, risk perception. The lad did his uni final dissertation
on it (elite climbers).

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 05/08/2023 14:44, wessie wrote:
> "chrisnd @ukrm" <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:kj6pt7F794oU3@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>> This tallies with what I put in my posting a few minutes ago.
>> Ie. Statins can maintain the status quo - no more nor less.
>>
>
> that's really not the case for sub-sections of the population

Agreed

> if you have hypertension or type 2 diabetes there is strong evidence that
> statins *reduce* the risk of a stroke. This is not maintaining the status
> quo, this is an improvement in outcomes.
>
> this is entirely different to prescribing statins due to raised cholesterol
> without any other risk factors, which is a dubious practice in my non-
> clinical but informed view.

Also agreed.
type 2 diabetes is obviously an 'other risk factor'.
As is increasing age of course.
We all suffer from that - my (limited) understanding is that this is
where statins can help - by maintaining the status quo as we age.

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

On 05/08/2023 14:15, Colin Irvine wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 12:25:27 +0100, "chrisnd @ukrm"
> <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2023 23:56, RustyHinge wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2023 19:41, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh well, that's converted me. I shall throw my statins in the bin
>>>> straight away.
>>>>
>>>> Fucking anecdotes. Load of fucking bollocks.
>>>
>>> I take 90 mg Atorvastatin daily and I haven't noticed any difference in
>>> anything. I haven't measured anything before and after, but no-one else
>>> has noticed any difference in my actions either.
>>
>> This tallies with what I put in my posting a few minutes ago.
>> Ie. Statins can maintain the status quo - no more nor less.
>
> The likelhood of you being wrong is why I'm giving them a go.
>
I could perhaps have put that better. Maintaining the status quo as you
age is actually a good thing compared with not taking them which is
likely to result in deterioration. This is what each of us has to
balance against side effects and all the rest.

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

On 02/08/2023 13:10, Stephen Packer wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 09:19:18 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>
>> Very glad to hear it. It was about 10 years ago I saw ‘lunch conference’ in
>> a GP’s diary.
>>
>> One wonders what other ways the pharma industry
>> have exploited to reach out to GPs.
>
> I once had a role which often involved me being taken to wine tastings, michelin
> starred restaurants and sporting events (although I generally avoided those).
> I never made a purchasing decision based on the hospitality I received.
>
> All it meant was I gave the sales team an opportunity to pitch their wares to me
> so that I was aware of their product line and how it compared with, my
> understanding of, their competition.
>
> I would imagine most GPs would be equally professional.

My mother occasionally brought home a new pen. I don't think they
influenced her prescription decisions significantly.

On 03/08/2023 13:10, Champ wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 11:56:44 +0200, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
>
>>> One wonders what other ways the pharma industry
>>> have exploited to reach out to GPs.
>
>> I'd have to ask J for more detail, but part of her job is business
>> systems and processes that track all interactions between the company
>> and medical professionals. So I like to think that in general the
>> medical profession is actually basing its decisions on what ot
>> believes is best for its patients. Certainly saw nothing in my 20+
>> years in the business to suggest otherwise.
>
> <opens can of worms>
>
> I know you and J have lived and breathed this stuff for decades. But
> one would have to very charitable to argue that the pharma industry
> and compliant doctors haven't contributed at all the opiod crisis in
> the USA, wouldn't one?

The UK's and US's health systems are very, very different.

"chrisnd @ukrm" <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote in
news:kj73m9F794nU4@mid.individual.net:

> On 05/08/2023 14:44, wessie wrote:
>> "chrisnd @ukrm" <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote in
>> news:kj6pt7F794oU3@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>
>>> This tallies with what I put in my posting a few minutes ago.
>>> Ie. Statins can maintain the status quo - no more nor less.
>>>
>>
>> that's really not the case for sub-sections of the population
>
> Agreed
>
>> if you have hypertension or type 2 diabetes there is strong evidence
>> that statins *reduce* the risk of a stroke. This is not maintaining
>> the status quo, this is an improvement in outcomes.
>>
>> this is entirely different to prescribing statins due to raised
>> cholesterol without any other risk factors, which is a dubious
>> practice in my non- clinical but informed view.
>
> Also agreed.
> type 2 diabetes is obviously an 'other risk factor'.
> As is increasing age of course.
> We all suffer from that - my (limited) understanding is that this is
> where statins can help - by maintaining the status quo as we age.
>

you do not seem to understand the meaning of status quo - if something is
improved it has not remained static

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 14:36:05 UTC+1, wessie wrote:
> Stephen Packer <stephen...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:c6c636e3-e1c8-4cfe...@googlegroups.com:
> > Also, in the UK, while I think Starmer's done a great job at
> > recovering the Labour party a bit of me wonders... he'll be 62 by the
> > next election, 67 going into the one following that. Surely it would
> > be better to hand the mantle over to someone in their 40s to give them
> > a fair crack at not looking like an old fart in 2029 or whenever.
> > There are five shit years ahead for the government, the last thing you
> > need is the figurehead being utterly fucked (which he probably will
> > be; look how much Blair aged during his ministries and he was a far
> > younger man).
> >
> with such a skewed, elderly demographic do you think they would vote for
> someone as young as Wes Streeting (40) or Angela Raynor (43)?
>
> Back in 1997, Blair, born in 1952, was pretty close to the dominant boomer
> generation.
>
> Starmer is a month older than me and considered a bit of a whippersnapper
> by most of the boomer generation. Maybe Yvette Cooper would be a better
> prospect for 2029? She's gained a lot of political capital as chair of the
> Home Affairs Select Committee.

Well... yes and no.

In 2019 Johnson was elected and he's on the cusp of Boomer/X.

Cooper wouldn't be a bad choice yet she's still also starting to age at 55 by
next election.

Maybe one should lose the vote upon retirement...

Pete Fisher wrote:
> They keep telling me my days are numbered (I've just about outlived my
> mother who died of a heart attack at 75)

I've already outlived my father by a decade, which as far as I'm concerned makes me pretty much immortal.

Higgins wrote:
> I think my doctor was rather taken aback that I wanted to have a risk-based
> discussion on cholesterol and statins. He came up with a calculation
> showing that my risk of heart disease was something like 2 percentage
> points higher than is typical for my age cohort at the time. I think he was
> even more taken aback when I decided that, as someone who rides motorcycles
> and skied, the difference was well within my risk appetite.

I had exactly the same conversation with mine, while I was still racing. "So a ten percent chance of something happening means a 90% chance of it NOT happening, right?"

> And, to note,
> my levels were ridiculously high. I mean a doctor taking a sharp intake of
> breath isn’t usually a good sign, is it?

No sharp intake from mine, but a definite double-take and her precise words were "those are the highest numbers I've ever seen".

Boots wrote:
> Conversely I am now having to deal with someone who unwisely decided to self
> medicate off statins despite the GP the cardiologist (who is family) and kids
> arguing with her. After a year a series of multiple strokes really really fucked
> you up and too late back on medication. I'll take my medical advice from
> professionals thanks rather then anecdotes.

Says a man posting an anecdote.

Ace wrote:
> Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> >I know you and J have lived and breathed this stuff for decades. But
> >one would have to very charitable to argue that the pharma industry
> >and compliant doctors haven't contributed at all the opiod crisis in
> >the USA, wouldn't one?
>
> I'm honestly not sure about that. I mean, yes, over-prescribing, sure,
> but that's a feature of the US healthcare (non-)system more than
> anything else. The blame has been placed on the pharma industry, it's
> true, by I still believe that most 'accidental' addicts were actively
> misusing and consciously overusing the drugs for other than the pain
> relief for which they were intended.
>
> The idea that a GP would be pushed to prescribe inappropriately large
> amounts or for unwarranted use by the pharma industry doesn't hold
> water, IMO. By their patients, yes.

Have you seen Dopesick?

On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 12:13:46 +0100, Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>America absolutely was not "disgraced" by Bill Clinton. Most of the
>rest of the world just shrugged, and thought, yeah, people's private
>lives are complicated. One of France's president's had a mistress for
>decades, which all the French press knew about. They (rightly, imo)
>judged it wasn't politically relevent.

I'd agree, but many people are funny about that sort of thing,
particularly in fundamentalist religious societies.

>Your stats don't reflect the significant increase in life expectancy
>(along with compression of morbidity) that occured since the 19th
>century. Pilots and navy captains needs fast reflexes, which is not a
>requirement for political leadership. In fact, I might argue that the
>opposite is the case - decisions made in high office need to be
>considered.

Military pilots, maybe. Naval and army officers need to think clearly
and fast under pressure, but more senior officers like captains don't
need particularly good refleses. It takes time for a ship to react to
the helm or changes in revolutions or for soldiers to deploy. A ship's
captain is unlikely to be on the wheel itself anyway. If only there
were a seafaring sort here who could give a more experienced view.

Military officers, particularly field and ship commanders, are trained
for management as well as fighting tactics.

--

-Pip

On 8/5/2023 5:40 AM, Stephen Packer wrote:
>
>
> I think any Democrat would have struggled for the reasons you give. But a white
> male candidate would have had an easier path than Hillary, for lots of reasons.
> (Sexism, connection to Bill, rumours of financial misbehaviour in the past
> etc. etc.)

Sexism and criminal accusations were the main reasons. Neither of which
were valid, but the fat man used them.
>
> I just can't believe that Biden makes a better president in his late 70s than he would
> have in his 40s or 50s; and yes I know you learn a lot that lets you work smarter but
> even so...

I'm 75 and have had severe memory issues lately, but friends who are in
their 80's don't have nearly the same problem. It all depends on the
individual. But as President, the vast amount of work is done by capable
assistants, so he really just points the direction and sets the pace. A
lawyer friend who has pleaded cases before the Supreme Court thinks
Biden is the best President we've had since FDR. He has accomplished a lot.

--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS & ST1100 (in memoriam)