Posted on 02/08/2010 10:21:02 PM PST by neverdem
Researchers are warning that popular herbs and supplements, including St. John’s wort and even garlic and ginger, do not mix well with common heart drugs and can also be dangerous for patients taking statins, blood thinners and blood pressure medications.
St. John’s wort raises blood pressure and heart rate, and garlic and ginger increase the risk of bleeding in patients on blood thinners, the researchers said. Even grapefruit juice can be risky, increasing the effects of calcium-channel blockers and statins, they said.
“This is not new research, but there is a trend toward more and more use of these compounds, and patients often don’t discuss with their doctors the compounds they are using on their own,” said Dr. Arshad Jahangir, senior author of a paper being published in Tuesday’s issue of The Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The paper includes a list of more than two dozen herbal products that patients should approach with caution, as well as a list of common drug-herb interactions. Among the products listed are ginkgo biloba, ginseng and echinacea, as well as some surprises like soy milk and green tea — both of which can decrease the effectiveness of warfarin — and even aloe vera and licorice...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
.
The only thing ‘impressive’ about statins is the increase in heart attack that results from their use.
.
The resveritrol that you took was obviously from grapes. - If you use resveritrol from wild knorweed, the insomnia problem is gone, but very little resveritrol is needed, and too much might well be doing mischief in your body. Think in terms of how much you might be getting if you were eating the source, rather than using a concentrate.
Please accept apologies for the “all”-it was not intentional.
“The only thing ‘impressive’ about statins is the increase in heart attack that results from their use.”
Nice “sound bite”, but please address the results of the Jupiter Study that I mentioned. The results are exactly opposite to your statement. In short, the risk of cardiovascular events, in the selected group, is significantly reduced with the use of Rosuvastatin, by 47%. Of course, I am guessing you knew this. Why your comment is exactly opposite to the study results on this particular drug is unknown to me, but the readers of this thread are always welcome to Google +”jupiter study” +”rosuvastatin”.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0807646
To summarize the article for those that are Google adverse, The New England Journal of Medicine discussed the results of the study in November of 2008. I warn you that the data is going to make most folks eyes cross unless they’re statisticians.
“We verified that the assumption of proportional hazards was not violated during the follow-up period, and we found a robust benefit of rosuvastatin in analyses restricted to events occurring more than 2 years after randomization. These findings, as well as the demonstration that rates of hospitalization and arterial revascularization were reduced by 47% within a 2-year period, suggest that the strategy tested could be cost-effective.”
The article concluded that,
“In conclusion, in this randomized trial of apparently healthy men and women who did not have hyperlipidemia but did have elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, the rates of a first major cardiovascular event and death from any cause were significantly reduced among the participants who received rosuvastatin as compared with those who received placebo.”
This is just one study, but it is a relatively large and significant study. While Crestor/Rosuvastatin is no panacea, a nearly 50% reduction in cardiovascular risk is nothing to sneeze at. If one matches the parameters of the group that was studied, I would consider it an acceptable risk.
It is rather interesting that there was a reported increase in diabetes for Rosuvastatin users. I’m not terribly sure how to evaluate this bit of information, or why it was even considered “significant” by the researchers. By my reckoning, the risk of developing diabetes, for those studied, only increased from ~2% for the placebo group, to ~3% for the statin users. With a ~50% reduction in cardiovascular events, I would be sorely tempted to accept the slight increase of developing diabetes (but that’s just me).
This is just one study though. There are obviously others, and Google is our friend if we choose to use it. This bit of research is a bit more than slightly interesting to me now. While Jupiter utilized a 20 mg dosage, there are others where 40 mg./day was used. What was interesting, is that reductions in plaque load were reported. That dosage is going to make you sore for sure, but for many it is an acceptable discomfort considering the ravages of cardiovascular disease. Personally, I would consider that dosage level to be something of a stopgap while lifestyle changes bore fruit. I doubt most docs are going to keep their patients on that dosage level on a perpetual basis.
After 3-4 years, those taking statins tend to maintain their cardiovascular risk, while those in placebo groups tend to begin to increase their risk of cardiovascular disease on what appears to be an exponential basis. What is rather nice about statin research, is that enough of it has been done to show real benefits from its use. While I realize that herbal solutions have been with us for a really long time, there are not a lot of scientific studies that back up the claims of their adherents (good old aspirin being a noted exception). I would really welcome some solid scientific studies on various herbal remedies, but sadly I see very few of them if they even exist. It takes money, but without the numbers to prove it, it is difficult for some patients (myself included) to consider them as a viable solution to ominous problems.
For most "alternative" healing modalities it is the personality of the practitioner that is a problem not the efficacy of the art IMO. There is also the problem that the cause of health problems are not always easy to identify and neither are the solutions. Like it or not (and who is going to like it?) relief becomes a "healing journey." Kind of a new agey sounding phrase for a reality.
The problems that are easy are usually the acute problems and they are dealt with quickly and effectively and the patient doesn't spend months or years searching for answers. A broken bone would be a real straight forward example. No question who you go to or how it gets treated.
I had neck and back problems many years ago too and I went to two chiropractors who practiced different styles. Neither were flaky or medicine peddlers but they didn't help much. Went to an MD and got a similar diagnosis of non-specific causes and his recommendations but still no improvement. The biggest help was teaching myself yoga from a book.
The point being that there was really nothing wrong with the practitioners or their specific art they just didn't fit the problem. Nor were they at fault for not knowing where to send me. After several weeks chiropractor #2 did offer to recommend a surgeon but I declined. I had my own resources had I wanted to go that route.
I have considered a website to sell my own herbal preparations but, for the most part, I just don't want the gov in my business. Any of my business. Right now other obligations preclude my doing a full time project like opening a store which might be the best way for me to make a living and work directly with people. I had a very short partnership with an herbalist who owned a store, about four weeks, and that sharpened and accelerated the things I had learned very rapidly. It is difficult to stay afloat doing that though. People come to you for advice and then go to Wal-Mart for their herbs.
OK, warfarin is not all that toxic. /s LOL
There is always a choice.
It is just that the medical establishment doesn’t tell you that there are alternatives.
It doesn’t even look all that austere to me anymore. Having seen the complexity and diversity of life in it, which hides itself quite well, it seems like a big adventure going on behind a camouflaged screen. It’s even full of water. The water is stored and hidden in the plants which look so dry and brittle.
Lookout, dude, cannabis sativa can interfere with your blood pressure medication.
What interferes with Interferon?
Try DHEA. If hormones scare you try some ZMA. Both are cheap and effective.
Warfarin’s toxicity is not dependent upon or conditional upon or dependent upon it being counter-indicated with grapefruit juice.
Do you think one example of a toxic compound that is metabolized by the same CYP enzyme in the liver that grapefruit juice inhibits establishes the rule that ANY compound metabolized by that enzyme must be toxic?
Is this really what you are implying?
It doesn't speak well to your competence logic or basic biological knowledge. But then again it doesn't take much qualifications to be a peddler of herbal remedies.
That's quite true. All plants have a phytochemical profile. The body has to metabolize those chemicals and some combinations of them create different chemicals and consequently different challenges for the body. I forget now which old Greek said "the difference between a medicine and a poison is the dose" but it could also be said in many cases "the difference between a food and a medicine is the dose." It can also be the difference between your personal metabolic constitution, your condition and the particular substance/s you are ingesting.
ROTFLOL I conceded to you that warfarin isn’t toxic. What do you want?
If you want to look schmarter than an herbal peddler (must have missed the post where I said I don't peddle herbs) you might want to fix sentences like that. LOL
But just because ONE compound is toxic and is metabolized by the same CYP enzyme that grapefruit juice inhibits, in no way does it logically follow that ALL compounds metabolized by that same CYP enzyme are equally as toxic as warfarin.
Is that clear to you? Do I have to explain to you why the general rule you are attempting to establish has no basis in fact and is not supported by any evidence?
Is grapefruit juice equally as toxic as warfarin or any other compound metabolized by that same CYP enzyme? Of course not. So there goes the general rule you were hoping to illogically establish.
As to what I want. I would prefer that people without any actual knowledge of toxicity and biological metabolism refrain from making incorrect pronouncements as to the toxicity of therapeutic compounds based upon dubious reasoning and some sort of ‘guilt by association’ with grapefruit juice and warfarin.
Perhaps an explanation or reasoning or scientific data to support your ‘conclusion’ would be a reasonable request, however I realize that you are rather short on facts but long on illogical derived opinion.
Rhubarb can kill ya, I hear!
Warfarin’s toxicity is not dependent upon or conditional upon or a result of it being contraindicated with grapefruit juice.
Care to explain why you think it is? Sympathetic magic? Homeopathy? Thatamurgy? It certainly isn't supported by science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.