Statin research

I hoped statins helped ward off alzheimers, now we have this:

http://www.dana.org/news/features/detail.aspx?id=10598

Zocor got the best review. "Although follow-up studies produced conflicting results, the picture seemed to clear last year with a report that linked a strongly reduced incidence of Alzheimer's to only one statin, simvastatin (brand name Zocor)."
 
Statins....

I think the real issue here is diet and exercise. Lets be real here, the processed food the fast food the garbage we put into our systems is the cause of heart disease. Sure the genetics does not help in many families. BUT lets stop eating the cr@p, lets all exercise lets all eat Many less calories, lets all lose weight live less stressful lives and stop being all worried about the Numbers from the fasting lipid profiles.

Sure someone will say easy for you mr newguy, but really do we want to be on a drug that is well suspect? That is statistically showing an insignificant reduction in heart events ? Who took Graduate Statistics?? You know what I mean then about statistical significance of anything.
 
Statins....

I think the real issue here is diet and exercise. Lets be real here, the processed food the fast food the garbage we put into our systems is the cause of heart disease. Sure the genetics does not help in many families. BUT lets stop eating the cr@p, lets all exercise lets all eat Many less calories, lets all lose weight live less stressful lives and stop being all worried about the Numbers from the fasting lipid profiles.

Sure someone will say easy for you mr newguy, but really do we want to be on a drug that is well suspect? That is statistically showing an insignificant reduction in heart events ? Who took Graduate Statistics?? You know what I mean then about statistical significance of anything.

Rich will be along to strike me down shortly, but the fact is doctors are trained in medical school to treat CHRONIC illnesses, NOT provide PREVENTATIVE treatments. My dad, the retired pharmacist, used to say doctor's visits usually ended up with the doctor "reaching for the prescription pad" ...........

I think the medical community has done unbelievable things with chronically sick people, they live WAY longer than sick people 20 years ago. But, as far as reducing the number of sick people, little has been done, because the public would rather "take a pill" than exercise 3 times a week.............
 
Statins....

I think the real issue here is diet and exercise. Lets be real here, the processed food the fast food the garbage we put into our systems is the cause of heart disease. Sure the genetics does not help in many families. BUT lets stop eating the cr@p, lets all exercise lets all eat Many less calories, lets all lose weight live less stressful lives and stop being all worried about the Numbers from the fasting lipid profiles.

Sure someone will say easy for you mr newguy, but really do we want to be on a drug that is well suspect? That is statistically showing an insignificant reduction in heart events ? Who took Graduate Statistics?? You know what I mean then about statistical significance of anything.

I agree with your comment that diet and exercise are key.
You would not believe how poorly patients comply with that advice.
Then you can let them continue their evil ways and die young, or you can treat them.

You should also be aware that there are many others out there with genetic high cholesterols despite lifestyle issues.

I also disagree with your statement that the reduction in heart attacks in properly selected patients is statistically insignificant. It is convincingly statistically significant. However, it is not large on a year by year basis. However, if you add up 15 years of 1% reduction it starts to get my attention.

Glad you don't need medication.

Not directed at you, Newguy, but as a general observation: the smugness of the healthy melts like butter on toast the moment major illness strikes. I've seen it a thousand times.
 
I agree with your comment that diet and exercise are key.
You would not believe how poorly patients comply with that advice.
Then you can let them continue their evil ways and die young, or you can treat them.

You should also be aware that there are many others out there with genetic high cholesterols despite lifestyle issues.

I also disagree with your statement that the reduction in heart attacks in properly selected patients is statistically insignificant. It is convincingly statistically significant. However, it is not large on a year by year basis. However, if you add up 15 years of 1% reduction it starts to get my attention.

Glad you don't need medication.

Not directed at you, Newguy, but as a general observation: the smugness of the healthy melts like butter on toast the moment major illness strikes. I've seen it a thousand times.


Oh Doc, no smugness intended here. I have seen the patients you speak of not wanting to exercise and eat right. Wife spent 25 years as an ICU nurse, Daughter is a physican and yes I believe I am nothing more than human, spent that three days in the ICU back in 01 with Viral pericarditis yes I know what you speak of.

I have a problem with the drug companies fudging the truth, the advertisements the hey YOU NEED A STATIN, that is why I may sound smug and its not intended. As a physical education and health teacher for 30 years and been running for 40 I know really no other way. I remember as a kid I would hate the nights we had steak for diner, that fat and grease well just didn't do it for me. I loved the days of veggies and salads, potatos and pasta, COD and Salmon. I liked Tuna sandwiches and sardines. Who knew!

Oh and by the way that night that I was transported to the hospital in that emts rig thinking I was having an MI I had an oddly calm and collected feeling, like $hit I exercised the heck out of myself all of those years and ate the right things and said oh well if this is it oh well I took a deep breath and waited for the other shoe to drop, but on the floroscope table watching the cardiac cath and seeing and hearing well your arteries are clear and I am not sure what is going on but you are not having a heart attack I well felt relieved. I still remember the days and know there is a higher power out there. No way am I feeling superior.
 
Last edited:
Age: 56
Gender: male
Total Cholesterol: 117 mg/dL (130 was the lowest allowed in calculator)
HDL Cholesterol: 40 mg/dL
Smoker: No
Systolic Blood Pressure: 112 mm/Hg
On medication for HBP: No
Risk Score 4%

The lowest that I could make the calculator go for my age was 3% - I presume that is background noise - factors not known or calcualted.
 
The lowest that I could make the calculator go for my age was 3% - I presume that is background noise - factors not known or calcualted.

Right. A surprising number of first-time heart attack victims have absolutely no identifiable risk factors (up to half in some studies).
 
I must have been going to the wrong doctors for the last three decades or so. I've never ever seen one whip out a calculator, let alone do math...

My internist, the retired nuclear sub commander, uses math, charts, stats, and even calculators during all my visits. He was an EE and I'm a comp sci major, so he feels comfortable doing that with me.

As we all know, Nuke sub cmdrs are always right because they don't make you a nuke sub cmdr unless you are always right...

He doesn't like it when I point out errors.

Mike D.
 
Right. A surprising number of first-time heart attack victims have absolutely no identifiable risk factors (up to half in some studies).

Just want to say (from personal experience) that avoiding a heart attack is a really big deal. [If I could spend 1% more from my portfolio, it would be a very big deal....]

After my cardio "event" I had a treadmill test from a cardiologist outside of my usual team. I asked her if she had a lot of patients like me, who realized they had a cardio problem because of measurable reduced ability on the treadmill at the gym. She said, "no, I don't have any patients like that, they either don't exercise at all or they die outright."
 
Another interesting NYTimes article about statins published today 1/22--
"Vytorin, by combining Zocor and Zetia, produces a bigger drop in cholesterol than either drug could do alone, and without a marked increase in side effects. The problem is that there are no long-term studies showing that using the drug translates into fewer heart attacks or strokes."

And, true to form, the drug company dragged its feet releasing the results of the failed trial and only in a PR release not a medical journal.
Zetia - Cholesterol - Drug Trials - Heart - Medicine and Health - New York Times

Also, from a NYT article on 1/17
"Then, on Monday, Merck and Schering-Plough announced that Vytorin, which combines Zetia with Zocor, had failed to reduce the growth of fatty arterial plaque in a trial of 720 patients. In fact, patients taking Vytorin actually had more plaque growth than those who took Zocor alone."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/business/17drug.html?ref=health
 
As we all know, Nuke sub cmdrs are always right because they don't make you a nuke sub cmdr unless you are always right...
He must've felt that he didn't suffer enough during his first career.

Or else he's a really slow learner!
 
I'm 43 and have taken Lescol for 7 years. Heart attacks run in the family. My father had one at 43 and is still going at 67. My brother died at 34 from a heart attack, and my Grandfather at 60.

My total and LDL are fine but my body does not make HDL. It's very low. I run, eat a very low fat diet and do not smoke. I've tried Niacan for the HDL but no help. My doctor said that's the breaks and just keep doing what you are doing. I had a heart scan and the results were great. I will take the statins until I die. Every little bit helps. I want to see me kids grow up!!
 
Allergy to Rx and blood tests

Blood tests can detect liver and muscle problems early, while they are highly reversible. There are rare cases where such problems arise seemingly suddenly and irreversibly. I have not seen such a case ever. Liver problems usually occur within the first 3 months.

Once stable, annual follow-ups are what I do.

Rich, thanks for the quick reply. The reason I asked the original question was that I have always (or at least longer than my memory which is not so long these days) had elevated GGT. Because of that, my doc (when he was my new doc) said he wanted to treat my mild hypertension but was reluctant to because of possible liver issues. Some years later, either he changed his mind or saw new data and suggested the lowest dose of Lotensin (ACE inhibitor). Fortunately I remembered his earlier thoughts and extorted from him the bargain that I would try it if he would monitor at my demand. Fortunately he agreed. A week after I started (or perhaps 2), after the first lab test came a frantic call to stop taking the medication. I don't recall all of the details but many of the liver function tests,including GGT, had skyrocketed. No symptoms except for the blood test. After stopping Lotension, the tests returned to my normal in a few wks?/mos? and switching to another class of medication was uneventful.

Now, of course, I have become semi-paranoid about any new medication.......and the monitoring schedule for it.
Thus the reason for the original question. I always have this worry that, no matter what monitoring schedule I demand, the problem will surface just after we get comfortable and settle into some longer term regime. Probably silly but I have some history. If we had gone for a 1st monitoring point of 3 mos. instead of 1 or 2 wks as the first monitoring point, how much of a problem could that have created?
 
Last edited:
i fail to understand why anyone would introduce into their bodies a chemical to supposedly correct a problem fixed simply by diet.

it is like eating antacids just so you can eat a hot pepper which burns your mouth and stomach.

when the choice is giving up chopped liver or take statins and risk your own liver instead and you choose to continue eating animal fat, you really ought to question, before you pop that pill, just how concerned you are with your own health.
 
i fail to understand why anyone would introduce into their bodies a chemical to supposedly correct a problem fixed simply by diet.

it is like eating antacids just so you can eat a hot pepper which burns your mouth and stomach.

when the choice is giving up chopped liver or take statins and risk your own liver instead and you choose to continue eating animal fat, you really ought to question, before you pop that pill, just how concerned you are with your own health.


Because those pharmacutical company doctors say you should!
 
i fail to understand why anyone would introduce into their bodies a chemical to supposedly correct a problem fixed simply by diet.

Because not ALL things can be fixed by diet, there are things like genetic predisposition and family history to contend with.

when the choice is giving up chopped liver or take statins and risk your own liver instead and you choose to continue eating animal fat, you really ought to question, before you pop that pill, just how concerned you are with your own health.

Can't argue with that. I know a couple folks that made huge lifestyle changes and dropped off the statins because they got so healthy...........
 
Interesting the way the public statin debates have changed. If I remember correctly, five years ago there were a lot of news fluff pieces about the under-prescribed miracle drug which was horribly expensive.
 
Because not ALL things can be fixed by diet, there are things like genetic predisposition and family history to contend with.

certainly not all things. if you eat all your fruits & vegies but get cancer, by all means, have it fixed.

but how do you know that your body isn't supposed to have that level if that is the level you produce naturally. have studies been done on people who are simply genetically predisposed to higher levels but who do not intake animal fat? studies done on them when they eat healthy yet you continue to artificially lower their levels?

i just think this world is too quick to pop a pill.
 
There is very little heart disease in the japanese culture until it became a westernized society. In fact the low levels of cholesterol that they had showed a high risk of stroke of all things.

No the american diet is the reason for build up of plaque in our coronary arteries. Heck the reason so many MEN need VIAGRA has nothing to do with erectile disfunction but yes PLAQUE in the arteries of the you know what!!

Eat better, exercise more and live with much less STRESS!
 
There is very little heart disease in the japanese culture until it became a westernized society. In fact the low levels of cholesterol that they had showed a high risk of stroke of all things.

No the american diet is the reason for build up of plaque in our coronary arteries. Heck the reason so many MEN need VIAGRA has nothing to do with erectile disfunction but yes PLAQUE in the arteries of the you know what!!

Eat better, exercise more and live with much less STRESS!

I heard Cialis is better.............:cool:
 
I heard Cialis is better.............:cool:
Mike Ditka thrusting "footballs" through "tires" or Bob Dole pontificatng from inside a three-piece suit. Then there's rumors of the litigation over the "Cialis Inside" stickers. Hmmm... tough choice...

Next question:
[Numerous drafts, edits, and other [-]premature[/-] false starts deleted here]
Rich, do we really want to know how medical science determined that there's plaque in those blood vessels?
 
Mike Ditka thrusting "footballs" through "tires" or Bob Dole pontificatng from inside a three-piece suit. Then there's rumors of the litigation over the "Cialis Inside" stickers. Hmmm... tough choice...

Next question:
[Numerous drafts, edits, and other [-]premature[/-] false starts deleted here]
Rich, do we really want to know how medical science determined that there's plaque in those blood vessels?

Maybe they talked to Lorena Bobbit.........:eek::D
 
:D:D

That wasn't science -- it was Newguy888. Ask him. ;)

Read this..


Erectile Dysfunction Causes - urologychannel

Vascular Disease
Arteriosclerosis, the hardening and narrowing of the arteries, causes a reduction in blood flow throughout the body and can lead to impotence. It is associated with age and accounts for 50% to 60% of impotence in men over 60.
Risk factors for arteriosclerosis include:
 
Back
Top Bottom