From: vernon on

"Chuck" <chuckfrasher(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153036616.653784.136030(a)35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Is the chemical in Red Yeast Rice identical to lovastatin?

Not even close.

>If so, how
> much is there? Enough to cause the liver toxicity that statin drugs
> can, or just trace amounts? I can't take statins. I use Welchol but I
> am interested in adding another non-toxic substance if anyone has any
> ideas. Chuck
>
> Robert W. McAdams wrote:
>> David wrote:
>> > Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>The government has no ethical right to dictate what we can and cannot
>> >>put into our own bodies in any case.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Maybe in principle.............*if* everyone had the necessary amount
>> > of medical knowledge for making intelligent decisions about what they
>> > put in their bodies. But in practice, there are a lot of gullible and
>> > medically uneducated people out there who *need* to be protected from
>> > certain products which may have dangerous side effects which are not
>> > mentioned in marketing claims (at least the TV commercials for
>> > pharmaceuticals have to list the most common and/or dangerous adverse
>> > effects!!!). People without a medical or science degree don't deserve
>> > to be harmed just because they don't have such an education.
>>
>> I agree. But the question is why this protection couldn't be achieved
>> simply by requiring such products to carry a prominent warning whose
>> text would be written by the FDA. Are the potential side effects of the
>> lovastatin in red yeast rice really more serious than those of the
>> tobacco in cigarettes (which are sold with a warning label).
>>
>>
>> Bob
>


From: Jason Johnson on
In article <44bb92dc$0$14268$88260bb3(a)news-taz.teranews.com>, "vernon"
<there(a)there> wrote:

"Robert W. McAdams" <rwm(a)fambright.com> wrote in message
news:44B9CE5F.2070603(a)fambright.com...
> David wrote:
>> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The government has no ethical right to dictate what we can and cannot
>>>put into our own bodies in any case.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe in principle.............*if* everyone had the necessary amount
>> of medical knowledge for making intelligent decisions about what they
>> put in their bodies. But in practice, there are a lot of gullible and
>> medically uneducated people out there who *need* to be protected from
>> certain products which may have dangerous side effects which are not
>> mentioned in marketing claims (at least the TV commercials for
>> pharmaceuticals have to list the most common and/or dangerous adverse
>> effects!!!). People without a medical or science degree don't deserve
>> to be harmed just because they don't have such an education.
>
> I agree. But the question is why this protection couldn't be achieved
> simply by requiring such products to carry a prominent warning whose text
> would be written by the FDA. Are the potential side effects of the
> lovastatin in red yeast rice really more serious than those of the tobacco
> in cigarettes (which are sold with a warning label).
>
>
> Bob
>

Missing the point that "natural" (not chemical equivalents) statins in Red
Yeast Rice are NOT dangerous except when taken in HUGE HUGE amounts, while
at the same time being just as effective in cholesterol control.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello,
I would agree that Red Yeast Rice is safer than statins. However, there
are some risks for at least some patients. For example, if a patient had
to stop taking statins because their creatinine level rose from 1.1 MG/DL
to 6.7 MG/DL--that patient should NOT take Red Yeast Rice. Do you see my
point?
Jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: PeterB on

David wrote:
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>
> > The government has no ethical right to dictate what we can and cannot
> > put into our own bodies in any case.
>
>
> Maybe in principle.............*if* everyone had the necessary amount
> of medical knowledge for making intelligent decisions about what they
> put in their bodies. But in practice, there are a lot of gullible and
> medically uneducated people out there who *need* to be protected from
> certain products which may have dangerous side effects which are not
> mentioned in marketing claims (at least the TV commercials for
> pharmaceuticals have to list the most common and/or dangerous adverse
> effects!!!). People without a medical or science degree don't deserve
> to be harmed just because they don't have such an education.

So how do you propose to protect people, other than informing them
about the dangers of medication, or cigarettes, or iron supplements?

From: David on

vernon wrote:

> Missing the point that "natural" (not chemical equivalents) statins in Red
> Yeast Rice are NOT dangerous except when taken in HUGE HUGE amounts, while
> at the same time being just as effective in cholesterol control.


Repeating the above statement over and over again until you're blue in
the face doesn't make it true.

From: David on

vernon wrote:

> So the "government" licenses drug companies to con people and Doctors into
> the use of dangerous drugs, called prescription, while at the same time
> insidiously rejecting safe solutions.
>
> People without a medical or science degree actually believe the idiocy of
> undereducated Doctors, the bought government and Pharms.


Uh oh, another conspiracy theorist. This is *exactly* what the
supplement companies and book authors looking to make a quick buck want
you to believe. I used to believe exactly as you do until I learned
how to distinguish between good and bad published research studies.
Look at what happened with the policosanol fiasco, for instance.

Supplement proponents are often ready to start recommending a
particular supplement as completely safe and efficacious purely based
on a single or a few small clinical trials, or even solely on an animal
or test tube study! Companies such as the Life Extension Foundation,
despite some very worth-while contributions to research, do this all
the time in order to make a quick buck and stay in business.