Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's unwise to base decisions on one study that runs counter to what the body of evidence shows. For one thing, the study participants were over age 60, so you cannot generalize the result to all ages. Also, if you read the entire article, one potential source of bias was the possibility that some people started a statin or modified their diets during the period of observation. If they do not know for sure who is on a statin and who is not, how can they draw any conclusions at all?
The most recent Cochrane meta-analysis found exactly the opposite: statins work.
"Reductions in all-cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisations were found with no excess of adverse events among people without evidence of CVD treated with statins."
I am very convinced that some kind of inflammatory process is involved in some cases of atherosclerosis, particularly those cases where hypercholesterolemia was not significant, and HDL was high. I'm now wondering if aspirin (the classic of ALL anti-inflammatory agents) works other than by preventing clots - its important to note that platelets contain a lot of functional agents involved in inflammation; they're not just there to make clots. Platelet inhibition may be more important than they think in preventing atherosclerosis.
Unfortunately, inflammation is a broad process with many different types of secondary effects, not all of them obvious; probably some not even yet known.
Inflammation is well understood to be part of the atherosclerotic process.
People with autoimmune diseases are known to have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
Statins have an anti-inflammatory effect.
A lot of current research is looking at ways to tackle the inflammatory component of atherosclerosis.
"Several beneficial effects of statins may be due to antiinflammatory activity. For instance, atorvastatin ameliorates experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, and a recent clinical trial demonstrated that atorvastatin has beneficial effects in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. This may be due to the capacity of statins to inhibit antigen-dependent T-cell activation. Other important targets include endothelial nitric oxide production and fibrinolysis, both of which are enhanced by statins, and platelet activity, which is reduced. Inhibition of inflammation adds to lipid lowering as beneficial effects of statins on CAD [coronary heart disease], as recently demonstrated in two clinical trials of patients with atherosclerosis and CAD. In these studies, reduction of inflammation (reflected by C-reactive protein levels) through statin therapy improved the clinical outcome independently of the reduction in serum cholesterol levels."
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 06-19-2016 at 10:44 PM..
Oh, Statins do work...BUT are they really needed by the Millions that take them. I don't believe they are needed and the cholesterol fear is just that in today's modern medicine push.
And as I said along the way, I have a friend in a class action suit for all the nerve damage she's encountered from statins that she probably didn't need. But she listened to her MD. She's wising up but she has an allopathic mindset with a smattering of supplements now.
The CAC heart scan is used instead as the primary measure as to whether one is at risk.
Again, one study that flies in the face of almost all previous study conclusions, a study or rather review of studies drawing different conclusions from prior studies..
Personally, if my cardiologist based his treatment on me from one recent study that is not well supported and contradictory to all previous data, I would probably look for a new cardiologist.
The CAC heart scan is NOT the primary measure as to whether one is at risk either, a test that many to most insurers won't even cover cannot be the "primary measure"
Statins have been controversial from the beginning. There have been multiple books written on the issue.
There's also new theories of what actually causes clogged arteries- I think one had to do with rogue fibers coming off of muscles- I'm sure the theories will evolve as most of them do. What was thought previously is not necessarily what is so today. Look at the theory of ulcers.
Everyone needs to do their own due diligence and make decisions on an individual basis- not blindly following the latest medical recommendations for "one size fits all".
The number 1 reason statins are no longer being recommended for prevention is the elevated risk of type 2 diabetes which raises your risk profile for heart disease.
"The study authors noted, however, that their research only found an association between statin use and diabetes risk. And since the study was limited to white men, it's not clear if the findings would apply to women or other racial groups."
In response to your bolded claim, I copied the very important caveat published in the same article. Remember, when it comes to studies, correlation is not causation. Just because two events occur simultaneously doesn't mean one CAUSED the other. And as for people telling people with high cholesterol to "just control it through diet," 75% of our cholesterol is naturally produced by the body. High cholesterol is genetic more than diet related. I got this problem from dear old dad. He is incredibly fit and active (he is a runner and every day exerciser at age 70) but has high cholesterol anyway. I had a level of 279 when I was just 17 years old!
After going on a strict diet and exercise routine, it was still high, and after adding a low level of statin medication I take daily, it is now down to a manageable 189. I won't listen to scare tactics; statins work for me. As to the diabetes link, obesity and crappy diet are PROVEN factors in causing diabetes. So people concerned about diabetes should work on those first.
Oh, Statins do work...BUT are they really needed by the Millions that take them. I don't believe they are needed and the cholesterol fear is just that in today's modern medicine push.
And as I said along the way, I have a friend in a class action suit for all the nerve damage she's encountered from statins that she probably didn't need. But she listened to her MD. She's wising up but she has an allopathic mindset with a smattering of supplements now.
In using any medication one has to weigh the pros and cons: is it better to have the condition or better to solve it? My Mother in law lived with outrageous high cholesterol and died at 97. Does that mean hubby and I are not on meds? No. We are both on low dosages but we do take them.
So you have a friend involved in a class action suit, we all have been involved in class action suits but that doesn't mean people should base their choices on just that. I still choose to listen to my doctor and if I have concerns either ask questions or get a second opinion.
i rufuse that crap. I cant tell you how maney friends and family take that crap and they have bad leg cramps can barley walk around the stores.
Actually, including barley in your diet is a fairly effective way to reduce one's serum cholesterol without the use of medications. If your friends and family would take that barley walk, they would be better-off as a result.
In using any medication one has to weigh the pros and cons: is it better to have the condition or better to solve it? My Mother in law lived with outrageous high cholesterol and died at 97. Does that mean hubby and I are not on meds? No. We are both on low dosages but we do take them.
So you have a friend involved in a class action suit, we all have been involved in class action suits but that doesn't mean people should base their choices on just that. I still choose to listen to my doctor and if I have concerns either ask questions or get a second opinion.
Yes, this friend blindly listens to MD's and took statins for 30 some yrs and lives with over 15 yrs of neuropathy and she doesn't even know what her cholesterol was or is...just that the MD's said it's high, what they think is high so many do not.
My folks lived into 90's and never knew cholesterol numbers, it's a big business this cholesterol and the companion drugs. Personally, I do all to not make Pharma richer, they are rich enough...wish they would get off my tv with all their drug ads... and all their drugs come with varying degrees of side effects...who needs them, I don't and what I do, very minimal.
Everyone does what they do whether they are very imformed or in the dark. Many folks who don't do their research on the drugs etc...are in the Dark.
I definitely think the prescribing of statins should involve some in depth thought.
I work in healthcare and have been reading medical journals for years and I am not convinced that we truly understand cholesterol and particularly what LDLs and VLDLs do for us (or not).
I have long been interested in the topic because I have had high cholesterol since high school (I am 47), and it has been above 320 for the last decade or so. I eat a super clean diet and am active and average weight (though my BMI is high because I have lots of muscle mass from years of long distance cycling). I have never been prescribed statins because every time I discuss it with my doctors, they say my HDLs are super high (outside the reference range) and I have low or no risk from other heart factors. They have all said that I am not a good candidate for statins. My LDLs are moderate, my VLDLs are extremely low and I am hypoglycemic (been that way since I was a little kid). Every now and then they want to watch to see if my HDLs lower and my LDLs rise, but that hasn't happened. All is pretty stable.
OTOH, I have met plenty of people with mid-range 200's cholesterol and everyone is acting they will have a heart attack tomorrow if they don't start statins. A few whom I knew well had liver issues (prior and unrelated to statin use), and I inquired if they were sure that they wanted to take the statins. They are hard on the liver. Are you sure you want to take them? Are you really in imminent risk of heart damage otherwise? Meh. They insisted it was the right course for them.
Maybe it is. IDK. I think the jury is still out for me. I don't think we ask the right questions in studies (far too many are paid for by Big Pharma), and I think the diet component for a lot of studies isn't controlled. That can be ok sometimes because it may have no net effect on the study, but other times, especially when the goal is to look at the effect of diet on cholesterol (which a large chunk of the studies out there), I am dismayed by how many of the studies's official documentation mentions absolutely nothing about the diet the participants ate.
All I know is unless and until I am in a couple of high risk categories, I'll wait and let the rest of y'all be the guinea pigs. For those who are in high risk categories and are status post some kind of heart surgery, I am happy there is something that may help. For the rest of us, the answer is murkier and you definitely have to weigh the pros and cons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
