Statin Wars - British Style!

You didn’t understand my point.

The risk calculators are off because they are based upon population risk of patients who were not getting the optimal care we enjoy today, especially statin use.

If you don’t understand the simple basics of epidemiology, you really shouldn’t be putting people’s health at risk trying to convince them they shouldn’t be taking the medicine that they have been prescribed.

Google is not a substitute for a medical degree.
Medical Schools do not teach nutrition effectively. Google does provide in depth articles from many legitimate sources regarding health issues. I am not an MD, but most of my docs over the years rarely addressed nutrition in my health and well being. Although, all of my docs over the years had a prescription pad on their desk.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/doctors-nutrition-education/
 
Last edited:
Well let's see, there's governments, universities, NGO's, philanthropists...
What's stopping them? Think they have as much incentive to advance science that makes money?
 
It's not that drug companies shouldn't fund studies, it is that they should not have exclusive control of the data and have investigators sign non-disclosure agreements or attempt to discredit or threaten those who bring issues to light.
LOL. IOW, they should be philanthropists.

BTW, who do you think controls the data generated by universities & NGO's?
 
My statin costs me $0.57 every 3 months.
This year with my el cheapo Part D plan, my statin is free! Big Pharma must me making a killing off me taking statins. And all those statin commercials blanketing the airwaves oh wait...

I also take the minimum dose (1/2 a 10 mg tablet daily) needed to get my cholesterol numbers into the good range.
 
At the risk of asking the obvious quuestion: Does High LDL (bad cholesterol) cause death?
What is the evidence?


A contrary view: https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-l...o-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/


"
Researchers chose 30 studies in total to analyse. 28 studies looked at the link with death from any cause. Twelve found no link between LDL and mortality, but 16 actually found that lower LDL was linked with higher mortality risk – the opposite to what was expected.
Only nine studies looked at cardiovascular mortality link specifically – seven found no link and two found the opposite link to what was expected."
"
Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of South Florida, the Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance and various other international institutions in Japan, Sweden, UK, Ireland, US and Italy.
Funding was provided by the Western Vascular Institute. The study was published in the peer-reviewed BMJ Open and, as the journal name suggests, the article is open-access, so can be read for free."


Just to cherry pick an example; Tim Russert... had good numbers. "Russert had earlier been diagnosed with asymptomatic coronary artery disease, but it was well-controlled with medication and exercise, and he had performed well on a stress test in late April, Newman said. An autopsy revealed that he also had an enlarged heart, Newman said. " http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25145431/ns/politics/t/nbcs-tim-russert-dies-heart-attack/





Fire away
 
Last edited:
At the risk of asking the obvious quuestion: Does High LDL (bad cholesterol) cause death?
What is the evidence?


A contrary view: https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-l...o-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/


"
Researchers chose 30 studies in total to analyse. 28 studies looked at the link with death from any cause. Twelve found no link between LDL and mortality, but 16 actually found that lower LDL was linked with higher mortality risk – the opposite to what was expected.
Only nine studies looked at cardiovascular mortality link specifically – seven found no link and two found the opposite link to what was expected."
"
Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of South Florida, the Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance and various other international institutions in Japan, Sweden, UK, Ireland, US and Italy.
Funding was provided by the Western Vascular Institute. The study was published in the peer-reviewed BMJ Open and, as the journal name suggests, the article is open-access, so can be read for free."


Just to cherry pick an example; Tim Russert... had good numbers. "Russert had earlier been diagnosed with asymptomatic coronary artery disease, but it was well-controlled with medication and exercise, and he had performed well on a stress test in late April, Newman said. An autopsy revealed that he also had an enlarged heart, Newman said. " NBC's Tim Russert dead at 58 - politics | NBC News





Fire away

Seems they came up with some conclusions that need to be considered:

"However, before accepting this as fact, there are many important limitations to consider – both to the review and the included studies – many of which the review authors themselves acknowledge:
There is the potential that many studies relevant to this question may have been missed out. The review searched only a single literature database, excluded studies only available in non-English language, and excluded studies where the title and abstract did not appear to contain information on the link between LDL and mortality in older adults.

The study only looked at the link in older adults aged over 60. LDL-cholesterol levels may show different links with long-term mortality in younger adults. Though this was intended to represent the general older-age population, some studies had excluded people with specific conditions such as dementia, diabetes or terminal illness.

The studies varied widely in adjustment for confounding factors that could be having an influence on the link between LDL and mortality. Age, gender and body mass index (BMI) were common factors that studies took into account, but others variably accounted for lifestyle factors (e.g. smoking, alcohol), socioeconomic factors, presence of conditions, and use of medications.

Only LDL cholesterol was examined. Levels of total cholesterol, trigylcerides, and the ratio of LDL to HDL "good" cholesterol could be having an effect and mediating the link between LDL and mortality.

Most of the evidence for this review is for the link with all-cause mortality – not cardiovascular mortality. High LDL-cholesterol is believed to be linked with the development of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. This review does not provide enough firm evidence to refute this link. The review cannot with certainty explain the reasons for the apparent link between LDL levels and death from any cause – with roughly half of studies finding a link and half not.

Importantly, the study does not provide evidence that statins are "a waste of time". These are not trials examining mortality between people prescribed statins or not. The researchers openly acknowledge that the use of statins – which they haven't directly examined – may be confounding the links in these studies. For example, the people found to have the highest LDL cholesterol levels at the study's start may have then been started on statins, and this could have dramatically cut their reduced mortality risk.

The findings of this review and possible explanations will need to be explored further, but for now this review doesn't provide solid evidence that high LDL cholesterol is good for you, or that statins are of no help. People given statins should continue to take them as prescribed.

"Fat is actually good for you" may be a great headline for a newspaper, and there are always researchers who are willing to make such a case, as we saw with the recent National Obesity Forum report.
These types of stories are often based on a selective view of evidence, rather than a comprehensive systematic review. There is currently no comprehensive body of evidence that contradicts current official advice on saturated fat consumption – which recommends no more than 30g of saturated fat a day for men and 20g for women."
 
At the risk of asking the obvious quuestion: Does High LDL (bad cholesterol) cause death?
What is the evidence?


A contrary view: https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-l...o-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/


"
Researchers chose 30 studies in total to analyse. 28 studies looked at the link with death from any cause. Twelve found no link between LDL and mortality, but 16 actually found that lower LDL was linked with higher mortality risk – the opposite to what was expected.
Only nine studies looked at cardiovascular mortality link specifically – seven found no link and two found the opposite link to what was expected."
"
Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of South Florida, the Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance and various other international institutions in Japan, Sweden, UK, Ireland, US and Italy.
Funding was provided by the Western Vascular Institute. The study was published in the peer-reviewed BMJ Open and, as the journal name suggests, the article is open-access, so can be read for free."


Just to cherry pick an example; Tim Russert... had good numbers. "Russert had earlier been diagnosed with asymptomatic coronary artery disease, but it was well-controlled with medication and exercise, and he had performed well on a stress test in late April, Newman said. An autopsy revealed that he also had an enlarged heart, Newman said. " http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25145431/ns/politics/t/nbcs-tim-russert-dies-heart-attack/





Fire away



It does... but the question is peripheral.

The question is do statins lower mortality risk.

And they do, for both primary and secondary prevention, and its been shown multiple times.

LDL might be the reason, but it might also not be. The bottom line is that statins decrease mortality, and specifically mortality from cardiovascular disease.
 
The question is do statins lower mortality risk.

And they do, for both primary and secondary prevention, and its been shown multiple times.

Despite looking very hard, I've never seen proof of that. Can you provide references?
 
3 goofs, do you or anyone in your family take a statin?
 
I think it’s very relevant. You, close family members, etc.
 
I don't take statins I use the regimen in this book instead.
NO More Heart Disease: How Nitric Oxide Can Prevent--Even Reverse--Heart Disease and Strokes Paperback – January 24, 2006
by Louis Ignarro (Author)


Been on it for 8 yrs without any side effects, my total cholesterol is 144 .
 
It actually doesn’t matter as I have no way to ascertain if what you say is true or not. Plus even if true I am not willing to risk my life for something so controversial.
 
The question is do statins lower mortality risk.

And they do, for both primary and secondary prevention, and its been shown multiple times.

Despite looking very hard, I've never seen proof of that. Can you provide references?

I’m not your scut resident.

The information is readily accessible to you. If you haven’t run across the 4S trial, or cardiology guidelines while ‘looking hard’... [emoji849]

Sorry, but you're making unsubstantiated claims. The only benefit ever shown, by the 4S and other studies, was for patients who already had coronary heart disease.

I was referring to your claim of benefit in "primary prevention", meaning those without current CHD. There is no evidence of that.
 
How does a person know if they are truly free of CHD, especially those over 50 years old.
 
Sorry, but you're making unsubstantiated claims. The only benefit ever shown, by the 4S and other studies, was for patients who already had coronary heart disease.



I was referring to your claim of benefit in "primary prevention", meaning those without current CHD. There is no evidence of that.



Again... this stuff is simple to find, but not easy to interpret if you don’t have the training and like to pretend you know stuff because you read websites.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4917787/#!po=0.625000
 
Again... this stuff is simple to find, but not easy to interpret if you don’t have the training and like to pretend you know stuff because you read websites.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4917787/#!po=0.625000

Apart from demonstrating a poor grasp of common courtesy in both this and your previous post, you cited a link that shows no response to my question. Quoted from your link:
It is not clear that statins used for primary prevention in low risk asymptomatic patients are of value or sufficiently safe.

I have to conclude that it's not worth my time engaging with you, so I won't post in this thread again.
 
How does a person know if they are truly free of CHD, especially those over 50 years old.

I don't think there's a way to be 100% certain, but I know of 3 tests which will give you a good idea:

Coronary artery calcification score (CAC) indicates the level of plaque in your arteries. A low CAC score means you're pretty safe. If your score is high, look up Dr. William Davis for tips on improving your score.

Homocysteine is an amino acid that either causes inflammation or is a marker for inflammation. You can lower homocysteine with B vitamins (B6, B12, and folate).

Total or LDL cholesterol are weak markers for risk. HDL is better. The best marker is the triglyceride/HDL ratio. If TG/HDL is less than 2, you're pretty well off. Exercise raises HDL and lowers triglycerides, so this may be a marker for fitness. Saturated fat raises HDL and sugar raises triglycerides, so this may also be a marker for diet.
 
I don't think there's a way to be 100% certain, but I know of 3 tests which will give you a good idea:

Coronary artery calcification score (CAC) indicates the level of plaque in your arteries. A low CAC score means you're pretty safe. If your score is high, look up Dr. William Davis for tips on improving your score.

Homocysteine is an amino acid that either causes inflammation or is a marker for inflammation. You can lower homocysteine with B vitamins (B6, B12, and folate).

Total or LDL cholesterol are weak markers for risk. HDL is better. The best marker is the triglyceride/HDL ratio. If TG/HDL is less than 2, you're pretty well off. Exercise raises HDL and lowers triglycerides, so this may be a marker for fitness. Saturated fat raises HDL and sugar raises triglycerides, so this may also be a marker for diet.
Thank you. My TG/HDL - 1.04. I keep rushing back to my test results. My DF had good numbers but her CAC was very high and that was discovered after her heart attack. My PC does not test CAC. (Edit) I just read you need a CT scan. No wonder they don't typically test for CAC.
 
Last edited:
I really don't like the name of this dicussion - Statin Wars. It's a shame that the use of this drug and and how deal with CVD has become such a hot button topic. This is a very complicated issue and, as such, we should expect various points of view including those who believe the opposite of what we do.

I offer this long podcast for those who want to take a deep dive into CVD drug treatments:

https://peterattiamd.com/tomdayspring4/

In this five-part series, Thomas Dayspring, M.D., FACP, FNLA, a world-renowned expert in lipidology, and one of Peter’s most important clinical mentors, shares his wealth of knowledge on the subject of lipids. In Part IV, Peter and Tom review the history and current use of drugs to prevent cardiovascular disease. They also discuss why some drugs appear to be more effective than others, an in-depth conversation about niacin, cholesterol and brain health, and the futility of using CKs (creatinine kinase) and liver function tests to identify adverse effects in statins, to name a few topics in this episode.
This is one of five podcasts all of which are very medically techy, so they may not be for everybody. I will offer this quote from Dr. Dayspring as I think it sums up why so many of us (including doctors) are confused. Apparently (Surprise!) there is no one right answer for all of us:

“This is what it ultimately comes down to – and it’s the way you practice – you’ve got to individualize everything.” –Tom Dayspring
Take what you wish and leave the rest. .
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom