statins vs. heart disease death
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70906170427.htm
Quote:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content...NAHA.117.027966 Quote:
Okay, so you do a five year study with statins. Over the five years, there's less heart disease. You return patients to their family doctors. The intervention is over. You now have two groups, one has been established to have a higher rate of heart disease. One thing that's very predictive of future heart disease is pre-existing heart disease. Once you've established these groups, one with higher heart disease than the other--even if the intervention ends, even if their treatment going forward is likely to be roughly the same, the family doctor is likely to put them on statins, not continue their placebo treatment, if that's what they had before. It seems to me that once a group with higher heart disease is established, the probability that that pattern will continue is high. Less cardiovascular disease in five years being followed by less cardiovascular death going forwards isn't really astonishing. |
Study was funded by Sanofi S.A. A French multinational pharmaceutical company and was originally funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sankyo, also producers of statins. Not that I want to delve into it, but believe this is relative risk, though still has an absolute risk of 2%....as long as you can tolerate the side effects for 20 years. And you have to be a man with "very high" LDL.
|
Thanks Janet. Not shocked. One thing I found funky;
Quote:
I know it's in his best interest to make the study seem as significant as possible--but in doing so, he's pretty much bashed the idea that outside of this one study, there's much of anything to "legitimize" current statin guidelines. This is actually quite the admission. |
What is alarming is that the studies (initial 5-year and subsequent 15-year) are based on the assumption that anyone with LDL-C above 190 mg/dL is at risk. And over time, the level of LDL-C considered dangerous is being lowered. More and more we're learning that LDL-C is not a valid health marker for CHD. Just as we've learned that total cholesterol is no longer a valid health marker. So, you generate data based on a questionable health marker from studies funded by the very pharmaceutical companies who have a vested interest in an outcome for promoting statins. Sorry for stating the obvious, but we live in a crazy world when no one is willing to challenge these findings, other than those of us who have interest in reading and researching this stuff. And the physicians who can prescribe these medications fall in line and continue to do so based on relative risk data. Unbelievable, but true.
Yesterday, I was again in the car listening to Doctor Radio on XM (yes, I am a glutton for punishment), and I heard a cardiologist describing the dangers of high blood pressure and how it causes stroke, heart disease, and other bad health situations, and all I could do is wonder, well, what causes high blood pressure, and isn't it simply another symptom correlated with stroke, heart disease, and other bad health situations? We no longer seek to find the root cause that could be the reason for a variety of symptoms. Again, I'm stating the obvious, but we've lost our ability to think about how all these symptoms being much more frequent and common since the late 1970s came to be. What has changed since then? I believe a few of us know or at least have a reasonable hypothesis. |
Quote:
A friend and I used to walk our dogs together every day and when I moved she said she had to go back on her blood pressure meds because she didn't walk as far or as fast without me. It's too bad that doctors don't "prescribe" a half hour of somewhat brisk walking daily - for various reasons. Simple walking also compared favorably with Zoloft for depression in a Duke University a while back, for instance. I joined a weight loss group last year and was rather shocked to find that most members do no form of exercise and ALL of them still eat sugar! Including the diabetics. |
Uffe Ravnskov rips this one to shreds...that is, if he could penetrate the obfuscated data. Good links in the article. Can also find rebuttals in the BMJ.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/october-2017...d-us-purposely/ Quote:
|
Excellent analysis by Dr. Ravnskov. These finding should be ripped, and people must be made aware of this travesty. My doctors either are not aware of this issue (most likely because unless one is a statistician, there is no way someone is willing to wade through this and identify the fallacies and they'll happily take the results from the drug companies) or they're ignoring it and going with the medical expert status quo due to their flocking mentality. I'll give my doctors the benefit of the doubt, and it all means the as individual patients, we must double down on doing our own research and increasing our own awareness to protect our own good health.
Dr. Uffe Ravnskov's book, "The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease" is a great resource for those interested in a deeper dive on this issue. The great news? It's now selling for just $0.99 in Kindle version on Amazon!!! |
Thank you, I have just bought this book from Amazon UK for £0.99
|
In older adults (>65..it's science...I’m officially old :lol: ) there is no benefit to statin treatment vs usual care, with even a non-significant increase in all cause mortality. This was for primary prevention, no evidence of CVD at start.
Yet, if you run the current risk calculator most men over 65 and many women will end up with a "risk factor" that results in a statin prescription. Quote:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...1?redirect=true Ted Naiman shared this and a chart from the full text at Twitter. |
More on the Statin Wars.
MaryAnne Demasi has a new article in the BMJ, which is behind a paywall, but Michael West has interpreted it in lay terms. https://www.dietdoctor.com/statin-w...lucrative-drugs Quote:
|
When I'm out and about I usually listen to NPR radio in the car. If it's a Sunday afternoon I sometimes catch the program "Dr. Zorba Pastor on your Health". Most of the time I enjoy it but some things make me freak - like the episode where he said Dr. Atkins died of a heart attack when someone called asking about a LC diet.
So I know he's low fat devotee based on his weekly recipes, but I ignore that part of the show. But yesterday he had a woman call in who has 2 children who are both T1 diabetics - a boy of 17 and a girl of 12. Her doctor wanted to put them both on statins as they each had elevated cholesterol, but she was worried about something like that for such young children. Well Dr. Zorba did feel the evidence was not in to start someone as young as her daughter on statins. But he was totally on-board with the son going on statins as soon as he turned 18. He went on for quite some time about what a "wonder drug" statins are, and that heart attacks/deaths (? can't recall exactly) have dropped by 75% since statins came into common use. The mother was worried about such young children being on such drugs for life - but he seemed to feel this was the absolute best thing they could do, and that EVERY diabetic, regardless of cholesterol levels, should be on statins. He finally seemed to have convinced the mom that this would be in her childrens' regimens forever and what a blessing that would be. I may have to start turning off the radio when his program comes on in the future! |
Another new study from the statinators at Imperial College London, and response by the producer of "Statin Nation" film.
https://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=481689 Both the Statin Nation films are available on DietDoctor to members. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.