Statin Wars?

[Amethyst]

I already posted that as soon as I plugged 65 into the calculator, it said "Statin."

Women lose their heart protection after menopause, sadly.

I purposely said man because women's risk is lower so they don't age in at 65, or so it seems.

 

[Amethyst]

Husband is well past 70 and has never been put on a statin. His cholesterol is ridiculously low anyway.

If you look at the flowchart that dirtbiker used earlier and the calculator linked to, once you're over 7.5% statins are recommended. Even with good lipid numbers etc. we all "age in" between 65 and 70 or thereabouts. Go play with the calculator and then look at the recommendations. They recommend everyone be on statins at approximately those ages.

 

[friar1610]

I've had relatively high cholesterol and triglyceride levels for years but aside from a mild caution to watch my diet, my doctors* have never done anything about them. I've apparently had good ratios which have lessened their concern. However, this year (at 74) I was advised to start a 20 mg Lipitor generic for the first time. Although my LDL has stayed about the same, my HDL had declined when my blood was checked at my most recent physical. My risk factor is now 26.1%. I've been on a mild BP med for years and the hypertension is well controlled. I've exercised regularly for many years and continue to do so. Not overweight.

I've accepted the recommendation and have been on the statin now for about 3 weeks. No signs of side effects to date. I go back at the 3-6 month point for another lipid panel. Guess I'll revisit the decision at that time.

* I said doctors because I've moved a few times in the last 20 years and have had several different docs. I interpreted the fact that, until now, none of them recommended a statin as a good sign that I didn't really need one in spite of the high numbers.

 

[audreyh1]

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.312782


There is now overwhelming evidence to support reducing LDL-c (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD).3 Statins are the most widely prescribed and evidence-based lipid-lowering drug in the world for lowering LDL-c and reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, both in primary and secondary prevention.4 Recent statistics demonstrate increasing statin use in adults aged ≥40 years5 and in patients with elevated atherosclerotic CVD risk.6 Meta-analysis highlights the benefits of LDL-c reduction, with every 1 mmol/L (38.7 mg/dL) reduction associated with a significant 22% relative risk reduction in major vascular and coronary events.7 This is supported by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration. In men and women with a wide spectrum of clinical characteristics, there was a consistent relative risk reduction in major vascular events per change in LDL-c level with no observed adverse events, suggesting that lowering beyond current targets would further reduce CVD risk.8

The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration CTTC holds a bunch of pharmaceutical statin clinical trials data under non-disclosure agreements and is heavily funded by big Pharma. They publish lots of papers praising statins, but no one else can independently verify their results or conclusions because not one else has access to the data. They claimed statin side effects were tiny. Well it turns out that test subjects are routinely screened for side effects and kicked out of the trials - especially during an initial run-in period. No wonder they way underreport side effects. The whole setup reeks.

The JUPITER controlled trial showed clearly that LDL was not the predictor of heart events. Lowering LDL did not have lowering effect on heart events. It was inflammation that predicted the heart events. It turned out the group on statins had lower inflammation and thus much fewer events than those on placebo. The trial was stopped early, and declared a success - but not because of lowering LDL.

There are lots of ways to reduce inflammation - statins are not the only option.

 

[Amethyst]

Audrey, I think you have written about this before...but what tests are useful to measure inflammation?

The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration CTTC holds a bunch of pharmaceutical statin clinical trial data under non-disclosure agreement and is heavily funded by big Pharma. They publish lots of papers praising statins, but no one else can independently verify their results or conclusions. They claimed statin side effects were tiny. Well it turns out that test subjects are routinely screened for side effects and kicked out of the trials - especially during an initial run-in period. No wonder they way underreport side effects. The whole setup reeks.

The JUPITER controlled trial showed clearly that LDL was not the predictor of heart events. Lowering LDL did not have lowering effect on heart events. It was inflammation that predicted the heart events. It turned out the group on statins had lower inflammation and thus much fewer events than those on placebo. The trial was stopped early, and declared a success - but not because of lowering LDL.

There are lots of ways to reduce inflammation - statins are not the only option.

 

[audreyh1]

Audrey, I think you have written about this before...but what tests are useful to measure inflammation?

In the JUPITER trial they were tracking CRP. There are multiple markers of inflammation, CRP is one of them.

In the JUPITER trial they found that men and women with low levels of LDL-cholesterol were at significantly increased vascular risk due to elevated levels of CRP.

 

[stephenson]

I don't think I'm following well - assuming dirtbiker is a qualified doctor, and has offered his learned opinion, and several others are not doctors, have not indicated medical training or education, but have their own opinions ... and, the some indication of belief the medical professionals know about the falseness of the information - hidden information, etc - what and who should one believe?

That is the question, right?

Hmmm ... after a lifetime of working in technical fields (non-medical), I have found those with specific training to be more qualified than those without ... while this is an interesting discussion, I think I'm going to monitor the topic, and continue taking generic Lipitor for now ... I could change my mind, but I haven't seen anything in the medical profession except caring, thoughtful people - doctors, assistant, nurses, equipment operators, etc. - that would make me believe I was smarter or better trained or educated in medicine than they are.

 

[RAE]

I don't think I'm following well - assuming dirtbiker is a qualified doctor, and has offered his learned opinion, and several others are not doctors, have not indicated medical training or education, but have their own opinions ... and, the some indication of belief the medical professionals know about the falseness of the information - hidden information, etc - what and who should one believe?

That is the question, right?

Hmmm ... after a lifetime of working in technical fields (non-medical), I have found those with specific training to be more qualified than those without ... while this is an interesting discussion, I think I'm going to monitor the topic, and continue taking generic Lipitor for now ... I could change my mind, but I haven't seen anything in the medical profession except caring, thoughtful people - doctors, assistant, nurses, equipment operators, etc. - that would make me believe I was smarter or better trained or educated in medicine than they are.

You are free to do whatever you want.........I don't think anyone is offering specific medical advice to anyone here, certainly not me. I would like to point out, though, that the opinions expressed by me and some other non-doctors that post here are not just random thoughts we came up with.......in my case, my beliefs are based largely on evidence I've read about in medical journals (papers written by MDs and medical researchers, mostly). And I did not form my opinion on statins and other things based on one or two papers I've read...........there are dozens, and more get published all the time. I don't disagree with you that most medical professionals are caring, thoughtful people. What I think you may be minimizing, though, is that the whole medical system in this country (and other places around the world) is heavily influenced by the drug companies and their relentless drive for profits. For example, a significant percentage of studies on things like statins were funded by the drug companies..........would you expect those studies to reach any conclusion other than statins are recommended for many people? Dirtbiker mentioned that his compensation is negatively affected if too many of his patients do not follow his mainstream medical advice. That's absurd, and it's just one example of how our current medical system is messed up in a major way. I still go to the doctor when I feel I need to, but I also take responsibility for my own health, and do my own research on whatever it is that I need to learn more about. Some other folks choose to just do whatever their doctor tells them to do, and that's okay too. It's your choice, and your health.

 

[RAE]

In general, a ferritin level of 400 is indeed too high. However, all reference ranges are based on a particular lab's equipment/data, so they vary from lab to lab, and we take the lab's reference range when we interpret data. This being said, 500 on the high end does seem a bit bizarre.

Whether the ferritin played a role or not in your situation is inconclusive. You can't discount a sample size of 1, the placebo effect, or causation vs. correlation.

Have you had a bunch of other negative experiences with physicians?

From what I understand, the reference ranges used by many labs are based on blood test results from lots of people who are judged to be generally healthy because they are not currently "symptomatic" for a particular condition. But just because someone is not symptomatic (at that particular moment) does not mean they are in optimum health, nor does it mean that they are not on the verge of having issues related to a particular blood test result. So.........someone could have a serum ferritin level of 400, and clearly be headed for problems down the road (maybe not far down the road?), but their result is lumped in with the other "normal" ferritin results to help calculate the desire reference range. Am I correct about that? If so, that means the desired reference ranges for things like ferritin are based on flawed data. That is probably why my ferritin result of 400 did not trigger a reaction from my PCP, when it clearly should have. Virtually all of the medical literature says that 400 is way too high, yet it was fine with my doctor, since it was within the reference range. It is insanity.......

I think it is highly unlikely that the resolution of my issues was not connected in any way to the reduction in serum ferritin I achieved through donating blood. Once I got my ferritin level down below 300, my symptoms improved markedly. Once I got it down below 200, they were basically gone. Obviously, it is a sample size of 1, but I am comfortable with concluding that my high ferritin level was the cause of my issues in this case.

DW and I have both had negative experiences with physicians, yes. I won't bore you with more long stories, but DW also had a lot of problems a few years back, and went to about 3 different doctors to try to figure out what was going on. Like my situation, none of them were able to help at all, so I started doing my own research to try to figure out what was going. After extensive reading, I concluded that she may have a Vitamin B12 deficiency, based on her symptoms. So, I suggested this to the 4th doctor she went to (only telling him I thought it might be a possibility, and asking if it would make sense to look further into it). Fortunately, that guy (a physician's assistant) took my comments seriously, did look into it, and concluded (after ruling out some other things) that she did indeed have a B12 deficiency, and also Pernicious Anemia. Now she takes B12 injections and is doing okay. So that was a positive experience in the end, but it seems like the bad experiences have outnumbered the good experiences lately, at least for us.

 

[ncbill]

A few years ago a statin 'calculator' was introduced. One input about 1/2 dozen factors relating to health and it came out with a recommendation regarding statins.

In my case, I played a few games with it, setting the factors to those of an extremely healthy person - non smoker, very low cholesterol, high HDL, etc.

Once the age hit 64, it ALWAYS recommended I take a statin no matter how good all the other factors were. Always. Cut my age down a few years and the recommendation went away, but hit 64 and it as statin heaven not matter how good the numbers and lifestyle.

If the medical professionals wonder why people don't trust them, well.... here is a good reason.

Edited to add: FWIW, I post this message as a person who has decided it is in my best interest to take a lowest dose statin. I made this decision after a lot of research in to heart disease, LDL, etc. Just because I take a low dose statin does not mean I wanted to be bamboozled into it.

And the calculator posted qualifies one as hypertensive with a systolic BP of 125...surely that needs to be medicated as well?

Or maybe not: https://athleticheartsf.com/your-bp-is-125-82-is-this-too-high/

 

[stephenson]

And, in today’s NYTimes ... discussion of the polypill ... BP, statin and aspirin ... interesting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

 

[forza]

Dirtbiker, thank you very much for contributing to the discussion as a trained doctor, as frustrating as it may be given the amount of anti-statin zealots out there. I am a 51 year old 6’1, 175lb nonsmoking athlete who blew off dangerously high cholesterol levels (290 total, LDL 189) for years because I was an anti-statin zealot and anti-big pharma only to be diagnosed with 7 arterial lesions at the age of 46 including a LAD with a 50-69% blockage discovered on a ct angiogram that I completed because I wanted proof that my hypercholesterol levels were contributing to early heart disease before accepting treatment.

Fortunately, I am being treated by the one of the leading cardiologists on the west coast, and we quickly formed a plan of attack. Yes, generic Rosuvastatin is part of my daily routine. No issues with pain, memory, etc. after 5 years as my cardio has me on high doses of Coq10 and Omega3’s to counter some of the potential statin issues. Actually stonger now and a higher Vo2 max score on the cardiopulmonary treadmill test at 51 vs 46 due to substantially lower LDL and inflammation numbers (yes, both matter for someone with diagnosed heart disease via a calcium heart scan) and better bloodflow as evidenced through my yearly doppler imaging, etc.

We are all unique individuals. Get proper advanced testing, labs and otherwise so you can make an educated decision. Why try to guess if you should take a statin and pursue other treatment when a $200 non-invasive heart scan will tell you whether or not you actually have heart disease?

 

[bmcgonig]

I don't think I'm following well - assuming dirtbiker is a qualified doctor, and has offered his learned opinion, and several others are not doctors, have not indicated medical training or education, but have their own opinions ... and, the some indication of belief the medical professionals know about the falseness of the information - hidden information, etc - what and who should one believe?

That is the question, right?

Hmmm ... after a lifetime of working in technical fields (non-medical), I have found those with specific training to be more qualified than those without ... while this is an interesting discussion, I think I'm going to monitor the topic, and continue taking generic Lipitor for now ... I could change my mind, but I haven't seen anything in the medical profession except caring, thoughtful people - doctors, assistant, nurses, equipment operators, etc. - that would make me believe I was smarter or better trained or educated in medicine than they are.

What you're saying sounds extremely reasonable. And you should continue taking the statin. However there are many published (or not) doctors who rightly or wrongly disagree with dirtbiker. So what happens the logic of your statement then?

 

[bmcgonig]

Dirtbiker, thank you very much for contributing to the discussion as a trained doctor, as frustrating as it may be given the amount of anti-statin zealots out there. I am a 51 year old 6’1, 175lb nonsmoking athlete who blew off dangerously high cholesterol levels (290 total, LDL 189) for years because I was an anti-statin zealot and anti-big pharma only to be diagnosed with 7 arterial lesions at the age of 46 including a LAD with a 50-69% blockage discovered on a ct angiogram that I completed because I wanted proof that my hypercholesterol levels were contributing to early heart disease before accepting treatment.

Fortunately, I am being treated by the one of the leading cardiologists on the west coast, and we quickly formed a plan of attack. Yes, generic Rosuvastatin is part of my daily routine. No issues with pain, memory, etc. after 5 years as my cardio has me on high doses of Coq10 and Omega3’s to counter some of the potential statin issues. Actually stonger now and a higher Vo2 max score on the cardiopulmonary treadmill test at 51 vs 46 due to substantially lower LDL and inflammation numbers (yes, both matter for someone with diagnosed heart disease via a calcium heart scan) and better bloodflow as evidenced through my yearly doppler imaging, etc.

We are all unique individuals. Get proper advanced testing, labs and otherwise so you can make an educated decision. Why try to guess if you should take a statin and pursue other treatment when a $200 non-invasive heart scan will tell you whether or not you actually have heart disease?

What would you have done if your CTA had come back clean?

 

[dirtbiker]

From what I understand, the reference ranges used by many labs are based on blood test results from lots of people who are judged to be generally healthy because they are not currently "symptomatic" for a particular condition. But just because someone is not symptomatic (at that particular moment) does not mean they are in optimum health, nor does it mean that they are not on the verge of having issues related to a particular blood test result. So.........someone could have a serum ferritin level of 400, and clearly be headed for problems down the road (maybe not far down the road?), but their result is lumped in with the other "normal" ferritin results to help calculate the desire reference range. Am I correct about that? If so, that means the desired reference ranges for things like ferritin are based on flawed data. That is probably why my ferritin result of 400 did not trigger a reaction from my PCP, when it clearly should have. Virtually all of the medical literature says that 400 is way too high, yet it was fine with my doctor, since it was within the reference range. It is insanity.......

I think it is highly unlikely that the resolution of my issues was not connected in any way to the reduction in serum ferritin I achieved through donating blood. Once I got my ferritin level down below 300, my symptoms improved markedly. Once I got it down below 200, they were basically gone. Obviously, it is a sample size of 1, but I am comfortable with concluding that my high ferritin level was the cause of my issues in this case.

DW and I have both had negative experiences with physicians, yes. I won't bore you with more long stories, but DW also had a lot of problems a few years back, and went to about 3 different doctors to try to figure out what was going on. Like my situation, none of them were able to help at all, so I started doing my own research to try to figure out what was going. After extensive reading, I concluded that she may have a Vitamin B12 deficiency, based on her symptoms. So, I suggested this to the 4th doctor she went to (only telling him I thought it might be a possibility, and asking if it would make sense to look further into it). Fortunately, that guy (a physician's assistant) took my comments seriously, did look into it, and concluded (after ruling out some other things) that she did indeed have a B12 deficiency, and also Pernicious Anemia. Now she takes B12 injections and is doing okay. So that was a positive experience in the end, but it seems like the bad experiences have outnumbered the good experiences lately, at least for us.

I'm not surprised that you've had other bad experiences. Unfortunately you're going to have negative experiences with physicians the rest of your life, moreso than the average person. When you carry baggage with you of distrust, what can you possibly expect as an outcome.

 

[audreyh1]

I'm not surprised that you've had other bad experiences. Unfortunately you're going to have negative experiences with physicians the rest of your life, moreso than the average person. When you carry baggage with you of distrust, what can you possibly expect as an outcome.

I also have distrust. After receiving somewhat high-pressure advice after a referral, advice that made little sense to me (didn’t pass the smell test), I had to heavily research an issue and figure out how to get the right medical treatment, and be pretty aggressive about taking the right path for me. I learned the lesson that I have to advocate pretty strongly for my own health, I can’t blindly trust the medical establishment to do it. I have to continue to educate myself as much as possible to safeguard my own health. This was reinforced by helping ailing parents navigate their medical care.

I suspect many patients have had similar experiences.

Can you really call that “baggage”? Seems like real life with eyes wide open to me. How would it benefit me to be naive?

I’m sure a physician’s job is much easier if their patient accepts and follows their advice at face value. That doesn’t mean it’s always the best thing for the patient.

 

[samclem]

Backing out from personalities (please), a more general question:. In this dawning age of evidence-based medicine, is it appropriate for a patient to ask a doctor/health care provider how a particular course of treatment was decided upon? And should the patient be satisfied with " my experience, together with what I know of the research, indicates this is the best way to go." ?
If there's an available authoritative decision tree for doctors to use, should the doctor know of it? Should the doctor be able to cite it for the patient?

 

[Blueskies123]

tin use), After about the 3rd or 4th donation, they disappeared completely, and have been gone since.

So I hope that provides some background to my skepticism of "mainstream medical advice", and doctors that simply follow it, period. I also have a strong dislike of doctors (or any professional, really) that treat their patients/customers like small children who know little or nothing about what is best for them, and who should never question their advice. I know you probably are not that way, based on your earlier post, so please don't take this as a blanket criticism of all PCP's.

Since the symptoms did not return after several months don't you think it is just a coincidence that the symptoms disappeared after giving blood? After a few months, your levels would have returned to the higher levels and your symptoms should have returned.

I suspect time passed you just got better. It had nothing to do with giving blood. You need to do large scale double-blind studies to make this kind of claim.

Sorry, (please do not take this wrong) but I think the doctor was right and being suspicious of all future medical advice might endanger your health.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

UNFORTUNATELY my compensation is decreased due to "low quality measures" the government has been enforcing when enough of my patients refuse screenings and treatment. It doesn't matter if I document it, I'm held accountable and lose money out of my pocket. Many of my colleagues are dismissing patients from their practice who refuse treatment because it is affecting their bottomline. They then come to see me and my numbers look worse because I don't think it's ethical to dismiss a patient who refuses screenings, etc. On paper though, I look like a bad doctor. And it's only getting worse. Think this is good medicine? I don't think so. Wonder why I'm against socialized medicine? This is only the tip of the iceberg if that comes to pass. Be very afraid of socialized medicine. It's no good for anyone. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.
/end rant.

I REALLY respect your views and appreciate what you share as a medical professional. That said I believe your opinion about Universal Healthcare is misconceived. I have relatives and friends who are reputable physicians in the UK and Canada both with basic universal care. Their compensation is not affected by their patients perceived ignorance or choices not to take any particular advice. The Government does not have anything to do with it and are not manipulated by the drug companies. They just manage the costs. It is based on who gets covered, and as a result more folks get covered and get the care they need. They also control costs and individuals do not go bankrupt because of medical bills. How can this be bad? It becomes a little irrelevant and hypocritical as all those uninsured in the USA are not taking advice or even going to doctors because of the healthcare inequality in the US. Universal healthcare is what is it, the best way to get the most folk covered (for basic and catastrophic situations), which should be the goal, not how much someone gets paid, or who panders to the drug companies and providers.

My BIL in Canada has also been prescribed statins and happens to take them. In fact he does exactly what the doctor orders. But I am sure there are many examples of the opposite. The fact that your compensation is affected by the actions of others should be a red flag. The opposite is usually the problem when it comes to drugs (AKA the over prescribing of opioids), no wonder some folks are skeptical. The other issue of course is perhaps a good majority of folks cannot afford the drugs or care that you are recommending. If you live in a LCOL or poor area that may also be a contributing factor.

For the record I would listen and abide by your recommendations as a physician, If I did not like them I would get a second opinion. But my family can afford to do that.

PS. Notice how I do mention Statins in the post so as to not diverge too far off subject.

 

[RAE]

Since the symptoms did not return after several months don't you think it is just a coincidence that the symptoms disappeared after giving blood? After a few months, your levels would have returned to the higher levels and your symptoms should have returned.

I suspect time passed you just got better. It had nothing to do with giving blood. You need to do large scale double-blind studies to make this kind of claim.

Sorry, (please do not take this wrong) but I think the doctor was right and being suspicious of all future medical advice might endanger your health.

No, you misunderstood what happened. I donated blood roughly every 2 months from the first donation, as I knew my ferritin was way too high, and I wanted to get it down to a safe level. Donating blood drops your ferritin approx. 30ng/mL each time you do it. There was no gap in my donation schedule for about the first 6 times I did it. I was having my ferritin tested periodically during this time, and it continued to drop, as expected - there was no return to the previous higher levels.

And why do you think I am suspicious of all future medical advice? I never said that. Like Audrey, I feel that it is my responsibility to advocate strongly for my own health. I don't think it is wise to blindly follow advice from any physician (or anyone, really) without asking questions. If I were an MD, I would actually be pleased if a patient of mine was informed, and fully engaged in taking responsibility for their own health care. And I would certainly not mind reasonable questions from my patients about the care I was prescribing. I don't think that's too much to ask of a doctor, do you?

 

[RAE]

I'm not surprised that you've had other bad experiences. Unfortunately you're going to have negative experiences with physicians the rest of your life, moreso than the average person. When you carry baggage with you of distrust, what can you possibly expect as an outcome.

What can I expect? I expect to be treated fairly and reasonably, as any professional person would treat their customer. I expect that an MD would listen to my questions, and answer them, rather than just blowing me off as someone who doesn't know anything. If I treated my customers that way when I was working, I would have lost a whole lot of customers in a hurry (as I should have). As Audrey said, I feel it is my responsibility to advocate for my own health, and be informed about any medical situations that I encounter. That may involve asking questions of doctors, and even declining recommended medical treatment/drugs if I decide I do not wish to go that route. I think it's sad that you refer to my approach and belief as "carrying baggage".

 

[ShokWaveRider]

My MD uses the Framingham score to determine risk. He did prescribe a statin. I take half the pill he prescribed and my Total is under 200 (174) Ratios are good. I have Mediterranean blood and cholesterol is always higher than most. I recently had a carotid ultrasound and no detectable blockage was found. I am going to ask him if I can stop them on the next visit.

https://www.mdcalc.com/framingham-risk-score-hard-coronary-heart-disease

 

[Rianne]

What can I expect? I expect to be treated fairly and reasonably, as any professional person would treat their customer. I expect that an MD would listen to my questions, and answer them, rather than just blowing me off as someone who doesn't know anything. If I treated my customers that way when I was working, I would have lost a whole lot of customers in a hurry (as I should have). As Audrey said, I feel it is my responsibility to advocate for my own health, and be informed about any medical situations that I encounter. That may involve asking questions of doctors, and even declining recommended medical treatment/drugs if I decide I do not wish to go that route. I think it's sad that you refer to my approach and belief as "carrying baggage".

Patients are able to research and understand consequences of treatment, thanks to the internet. We can weigh the pros and cons, research study results, have intelligent questions to bring to our medical appointments. It's becoming an even playing field that demands in-depth responses to our concerns from medical professionals.

You, as a patient, have to live with your decisions. After all, when faced with a life changing medical decision, get 2, 3, 4 opinions from doctors outside the "group" practice. You may get 4 different answers for 4 different reasons. I will never take as an answer to my question regarding treatment "this is the Gold Standard of treatment." Gold for who?

 

[PatrickA5]

Ever since I learned I have CAD and Carotid Artery disease, I became somewhat of a health newsletter junkie from the large medical groups (Mayo Clinic, Harvard Heart Letter, Cleveland Clinic, Tufts Nutrition, etc). While they all seem to give a good overview of the pros/cons of statin use, I've yet to read anything that would lead me to doubt my cardiologist and PCP as to my statin use. Are all of these large medical research institutions in bed with Big Pharma and knowingly give false information to patients - just so they can keep getting funding? I kind of doubt it, but what do I know?

For now, I'll continue to believe that my doctors know what's best for me and they aren't trying to kill me with statins in order to get a free lunch from the drug salesman.

 

[bmcgonig]

Ever since I learned I have CAD and Carotid Artery disease, I became somewhat of a health newsletter junkie from the large medical groups (Mayo Clinic, Harvard Heart Letter, Cleveland Clinic, Tufts Nutrition, etc). While they all seem to give a good overview of the pros/cons of statin use, I've yet to read anything that would lead me to doubt my cardiologist and PCP as to my statin use. Are all of these large medical research institutions in bed with Big Pharma and knowingly give false information to patients - just so they can keep getting funding? I kind of doubt it, but what do I know?

For now, I'll continue to believe that my doctors know what's best for me and they aren't trying to kill me with statins in order to get a free lunch from the drug salesman.

I don't think there's anyone that would recommend you not taking a statin since you have cad. The people that argue over statins are arguing over its use for primary prevention, i.e., those that don't have cad but have lipids out of range.