Most studies on anything should be ignored. I think they should be
required to name who funded the study to be published.
that required us to take a survey topic and prove it regardless of
whether the outcome was actually what could be predicted or not. It
was a class in statistical methodology. We used the phrasing of our
questions and the selection of our sample. What I learned was that
ANYTHING can be proven if it is presented and sampled correctly. At
the time, I thought the class was a waste of my time. But I have
relied on what I learned from that class so many times throughout my
life to spot the BS that I wish I had taken it more seriously at the
time.
I don't believe that statins can cause cancer. I believe that cancer
is an anaerobic virus we get by consuming other cancer infested
flesh, similar to how cattle contracts BSE. Our bodies can control
cancers until we have a situation where tissue is weakened or is
unable to heal (statins).
the link. The cancer was already present when the statins were administered, but it didn't cause it, just allowed it to express.
Severe liver problems would be just a natural outcome of long term
use of statins. How statins work is to inhibit liver function. That
is their purpose. The problem with any drug that artificially
inhibits any metabolic function in the body is that many, many
functions are linked and use the by-products of one function in
another. Inhibiting one function can greatly impact another.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.