For those biochemically inclined (like me ), here's why statins are definite blockers of Coenzyme Q10 biosynthesis:
Coenzyme Q 10 is formed in our bodies. It is made up of two portions, a benzoquinone portion (formed from proteins), and an isoprene chain (made up of a chain of carbon molecules). As shown in the Wikipedia article (click here), the isoprene chain is syntesized via the mevalonate pathway (click here). This mevalonate pathway is the same pathway that forms cholesterol, as well as coenzyme Q 10. And it is exactly this pathway that statins block as shown in the diagram at the site.
So those who take statins would indeed lower their cholesterol levels, but could still die of a heart attack, and surely suffer (possibly irreversible) muscle damage, because of the resulting coenzyme Q10 "deficiency."
Gee that seams simple and straight forward to me and it makes sense. You would think then that the genius at the drug companies should also be able to figure that out. Assuming that they actually care.
The folks at the drug companies knew a long time ago that their statins would deplete CoQ10. Quite a few years ago, Merck even took out a couple of patents on a statin/CoQ10 product. They never followed through with this product and thereby let their customers suffer from the effects of CoQ10 depletion.
There is some speculation as to why they didn't follow through. It is thought by some that it might take too much money to do the testing on this new product. Others think that if they followed through on their patent, it would alert everyone that they previously knew how dangerous their product really was.
And then there are cynical folks like me who suppose that they took out the patent, knowing they would never act on it, just so that their competitors would not be able to market an "improved" product.
And then there are cynical folks like me who suppose that they took out the patent, knowing they would never act on it, just so that their competitors would not be able to market an "improved" product.
Mike
Yes certainly would not want to allow a competitor to come out with an �improved product� one that shows that theirs is defective and particularly if it showed that they should have known that they had a problem.
Reading in more detail the links I gave, I see that the mevalonate pathway is involved in more than just cholesterol and coenzyme Q10 biosynthesis.
Quote:
It is important for the production of dimethylallyl pyrophosphate (DMAPP) and isopentenyl pyrophosphate (IPP) that serve as the basis for the biosynthesis of molecules used in processes as diverse as protein prenylation, cell membrane maintenance, hormones, protein anchoring and N-glycosylation.
Can we really accept the damage resulting from blockage of this pathway by statins?
I'm still looking into the details, but you might want to do that along with me -- the importance of N-glycosylation, protein anchoring, and protein prenylation. Well, we should know the importance of hormone formation and cell membrane maintenance. And all these processes are blocked by statins.
So supplementing with CoQ10 while on statin medication is hardly enough. It only deals with one of the many substances whose production is blocked. How about the other molecules and processes?
So supplementing with CoQ10 while on statin medication is hardly enough. It only deals with one of the many substances whose production is blocked. How about the other molecules and processes?
Gerry
Good point. Also, there is a possibility that if we compensate for all the ill-effects that may be induced by the statins ... you may inadvertently diminish the "desired" effect of the statins. In other words, the statins may, in part, work because of some of the harm that they do.
For instance, I recall a study from some years back that found that taking antioxidants along with a statin actually blunted the HDL raising effect of the medication.
__________________
You're officially invited to come visit my new blog: www.healthyfellow.com
From what I have read, statins may work in the short term based on a number of studies. But, of course, they will kill you in the long term.
Apparently, statins may be anti-inflammatory. OK, good. And because they block the mevalonate pathway, this can have some positive effects on blood clotting and on the nature of smooth muscle cells. OK, good, again.
However, as you pointed out, what will this do to necessary functions? It is not a pretty picture. If I played the stock market, in a few years I would go short on the pharmaceutical companies which make statins. Like hormone replacement therapy and COX-2 inhibitors like Vioxx, eventually the truth will emerge about statin dangers. I could make a fortune!
From what I have read, statins may work in the short term based on a number of studies. But, of course, they will kill you in the long term.
Yes. But no drug company will sell their statins (or any drug for that matter) for short term use. They keep making drugs that need to be taken for the rest of our (drug-shortened) life. My father is even being made to take a statin "preventive" even if his latest cholesterol reading was 111! And all these in spite of the fact that blood cholesterol levels are not directly related to heart attack or stroke prevention, or even longer life span.
I always maintain that any good drug need not be taken for more than a week or two. Any drug that must be taken otherwise is no longer a cure, but a money-making venture. (How many drugs do we know that fall into this category? :wink: )
I notice there are hardly any advertisements -- no, correction, there are no advertisements -- for antimicrobials. Why? Because they're cures. We take them when needed, get cured, and stop taking them. Who makes money with that?
Related article, showing effects of cutting off the mevalonate pathway (this time by mevalonate kinase deficiency, but this is one step after the action of statins -- therefore, it should be an effect of statins as well):
I have a question...I found that Statin administration has side effects like beside lowering cholesterol it enhance the cancer risk...increase the cell mortality...can anyone tell me about the biochemical pathways involved here??or ny biochemical assays to prove this hypothesis??
Thanks all
I can't answer your question specifically but I can say that statin drugs decrease the production of CoEnzyme Q10 that is necessary for all cells healthy function. If you take statins you should supplement with this. In Europe some of the satin drugs have the enzyme included in the pill. Some of the problems you mention could be caused by deficient CoQ10.
Many studies have been done on the benefits of taking this supplement both with and without statins.
I think you will find your answer if you read this thread fully including the links provided.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
Statin drugs are not necessary and should not be used. High cholesterol is not the enemy and does not cause heart attacks.
If you feel the need to reduce your cholesterol level, use niacine. Better yet, use niacinamide... it will increase the good cholesterol while lowering the bad. Not only will it reduce cholesterol, but it will regulate it, and the only side effect is that it will make you live longer. Start with 500mg twice per day and work up to 2 or 3 grams per day.
Do some research on A. Hoffer M.D.
__________________
Let Food Be Your Medicine And Medicine Be Your Food.(Hippocrates)
I have 2 friends who lowered cholesterol by eating oatmeal for breakfast 5 days a week. If I am eating a mor emediterannean diet and exercising, my cholesterol drops, if I am eating junk and the typical american crap., it goes up.
But then there are others who cannot.
For example my brother.
He does everything right and takes natural supplements also
including not smoking and keeping de-stressed
but he could not get it below 300 without the drug.
Still his cholesterol hangs around 230.
He does take a statin with plenty of CoQ10.
He knows exactly which supplement and which drug will lower his cholesterol exactly how much.
Our father dropped dead at 41 from massive coronary.
So this had made him very aware and proactive
Perhaps he inherited some of his biological fralities.
Me on the other hand can eat most anything and have a cholesterol
well balanced and around 160 to 170 with totally clear arteries.
I know there is controversy about the meaning of high cholesterol and
I think the verdict is still out. I think a number of negative factors can come together which may include high cholesterol and other things that
can be dangerous.
If he doesn't take a statin he tops 300. His physician seems satisified with 230 and having a good balance between the factors.
My other brother has high blood pressure along with it and lots of pent up anger and takes nothing but BP meds and a statin. So his risk is much greater and you can see it just by looking at his physiology.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
There is a supplement called profibe. It is citrus pectin. It dropped my dad's cholesterol from 290 to 180. It says take 3 scoops a day, my dad took one. Give it a try
Statin Mode of Action -- Deadly!
), here's why statins are definite blockers of Coenzyme Q10 biosynthesis:
And all these processes are blocked by statins. 
Linear Mode
