Irrespective of where fatchance sourced it, the summary he posted was a response to a Q&A written by, yes, the discredited celebrity alternative-remedy peddling anti-science quack Andrew Weil.

www.drweil.com/health-wellness/body-mind-spirit/heart/red-rice-yeast-instead-of-statins/

You'll note that fatchance omitted the following from Weil's response:



A bit like I said, in my earlier post. The same post about which fatchance accused me of continuing "to be dense"...

The trial Weil refers to, Red Yeast Rice for Dyslipidemia in Statin-Intolerant Patients: A Randomized Trial is an early, small-scale, short duration randomised controlled trial in which a small cohort of patients were administered carefully regulated, analysed (unlike commercially available) treatment with Red Rice Yeast against placebo.

Critically, it did not compare Red Rice Yeast against current statins. The purpose of the study was to find an alternative to statins for statin-intolerant patients.

But....it very obviously was!

Out of interest, do you actually have a subscription to Annals of internal Medicine, or did you just copy/paste your text from the website of the discredited celebrity alternative medicine anti-science quack Andrew Weil?

Aaaannnd now he's edited his post with a copy/pasted, cherrypicked study from 2009 that supports his argument and not the actual body of evidence.

*Slowclap*

Sorry - I just edited the end of my post. But for anyone interested, I had sarcastically said that I "was, you know, just being dense", after I had dismantled fatchance's argument and shown that he had, inadvertently, provided evidence for my own....

...and that was his comeback...

Is there really any need for that?

I'm glad you chose that particular example. The active component in red yeast rice is not stanols, as you state, rather it contains monacolin K, a compound that is identical to lovastatin. The slightly reduced risk of side effects when taking red yeast rice extract occur precisely because the dose of lovastatin/monacolin K is lower. At the appropriate therapeutic dosage, the risk of side effects from the red yeast rice monacolin K is exactly the same.

However, analyses of commercially available red yeast rice extracts have shown the actual dosage to vary wildly, with none of those tested achieving the therapeutic dose of 20mg, and several containing no active ingredient at all. So it's a significantly less effective, safe and predictable intervention.

Additionally, one-third of tested samples were shown to be contaminated with citrinin, a nephrotoxin.

I don't believe you have a particularly comprehensive knowledge of drug approval processes and economics. You do, on the other hand, seem to be displaying what is known as the "Appeal to Nature" fallacy.

I would imagine a substantial subset of the “pro-ana” community are so inclined.

For example?



So the supplement will have fewer side effects by containing more impurities and less of the actual medicine?

That is not a valid reason to choose a supplement over medicine.

'>articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/24/pharmaceutical-drugs-vs-nutritional-supplements.aspx[/quote][/url]

Joseph Mercola is a quack fraud. Supplements may also be safer than jumping out of third-floor windows, but that doesn’t make them effective. Actual medicine is bound to have a greater chance of unintended consequences simply as a result of its mechanism of action, or effectiveness.

Cyproheptidine. Available as a product called Apetamin/Tres Orix Forte and the antihistamine medication Periactin.

Yes. Crossfit addict.