U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-07-2018, 04:27 PM
 
3,330 posts, read 919,781 times
Reputation: 2570

Advertisements

"A 2010 study by Dr. Golomb and colleagues found that a majority of statin users reporting muscle problems “were in categories for which available randomized controlled trial evidence shows no trend to all-cause mortality benefit with statin therapy.” The patients were not at high risk of dying from heart disease, but were suffering from sore muscles and potentially a more sedentary life."

 
Old 08-07-2018, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,481 posts, read 26,078,274 times
Reputation: 26426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
"Two trials [out of 19] reported no industry funding; the rest were fully or partially industry funded."

"Based on pooled estimates, the NNT to prevent 1 death from any cause was 250 after 1 to 6 years, and to prevent 1 cardiovascular death was 233 after 2 to 6 years."

Ok, finally found it.

Miracle drug! Only 250 people have to take it to prevent one death!


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2584057


Ya know, a tiny effect can be statistically significant WITHOUT having any clinical significance. What we really are seeing here is financial significance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2584032

A comment on the pro-statin article SuzyQ linked. In the same journal and issue.

"Statins for Primary Prevention The Debate Is Intense, but the Data Are Weak"

"This issue of JAMA contains the latest US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on statins for prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults,1 along with the accompanying evidence report and systematic review2 on which the recommendations are based. The evidence report summarized data from 19 trials including a total of 71 344 patients and concluded that statin therapy was associated with reduced risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Thus, the task force recommended “initiating use of low- to moderate-dose statins in adults aged 40 to 75 years without a history of CVD who have 1 or more CVD risk factors and a calculated 10-year CVD event risk of 10% or greater (B recommendation)” or “7.5% to 10% (C recommendation).”1 Although the task force did their usual careful job of reviewing the evidence, the evidence for treating asymptomatic persons with statins does not appear to merit a grade B or even a grade C recommendation."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Ok, I don't think you statin-lovers can argue with that. MOST people given statins are asymptomatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Is there a middle ground in the statin debate? - Lown Institute

"A 2016 JAMA study shows 0.81% reduction in absolute risk of heart attacks and 0.4% for mortality. In The BMJ John Abramson et al. (2013) find no effect on mortality from taking statins. David Newman’s analysis (2013) finds an absolute risk reduction of 1.6% for heart attacks and no effect on mortality."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlam...arma-skeptics/

Forbes is always pro-statin. Here is an article that defends statins for primary prevention, even though research shows they DO NOT benefit! The author still thinks it's a great idea.

But wait ...

"The author is the former head of R&D for Pfizer PFE -0.49%, the manufacturer of Lipitor, and still owns Pfizer stock."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...cise/?emc=eta1

"Do Statins Make It Tough to Exercise?"

"More than 20 million Americans are taking statins, and by most estimates, at least 10 percent of them will experience some degree of muscle achiness or fatigue. That proportion rises to at least 25 percent among people taking statins who regularly exercise, and may be 75 percent or higher among competitive athletes."


So ... one of the best things you can do to prevent heart disease is exercise. But if you take statins, you better not bother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
'“It seems possible that statins increase muscle damage” during and after exercise “and also interfere somewhat with the body’s ability to repair that damage,” says Dr. Paul Thompson, the chief of cardiology at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut'

We get it. You do not like statins.

Your thesis that no one benefits from them (except of course some population with a genetic cause that you feel is tiny).

I was going to respond to each of your comments but decided not to bother.

I will note that the author of the Forbes article did not perform the studies he discussed, in what is clearly an opinion article.

Finally, death is an easy end point to use in a study. People either die or they do not. However, using only death completely misses the morbidity from non-fatal MIs and strokes. Perhaps you consider those inconsequential. I do not.

On the NNT. You have to specify the end point and time interval. This article is from 2003 but it gathers the NNT into one convenient spot to read.

https://www.ti.ubc.ca/2003/09/30/sta...sing-strategy/

PROSPER: elderly patients with known heart disease: NNT=23 over 3.2 years to prevent 1 MI or stroke.

Heart Protection Study: 80% had known heart disease; NNT=23 over 5 years to prevent 1 MI or stroke; NNT=56 over 5 years to prevent 1 death.

GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation: patients with recent MI or significant coronary artery stenosis: NNT=14 over 3 years to prevent 1 MI or stroke. NNT=48 over 3 years to prevent 1 death.

This PowerPoint presentation has NNTs for primary prevention (no known cardiovascular disease). See slide #23, which gives the NNTs for people whose risk of a major cardiovascular event is 5 to 10% over 5 years. NNH is number needed to treat to cause 1 additional adverse event of treatment.

In other words, the more severe the existing cardiovascular disease is, the fewer patients you need to treat to see benefit. And, you know what? If you have side effects from a statin, they almost always go away if you stop taking them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
AND, did you know --

Some medical reporters have investigated this kind of nonsense, but the drug industry shut them up by accusing them of MURDER!! Because people might stop taking their drugs after hearing they are worse than useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaminhealth View Post
There are lists of doctors who have been silenced..one in my hometown who is now retiring after going to naturopathic medicine when he was silenced years back.
I doubt any investigative reporter worth his salt could be silenced by the drug industry. Doctors cannot be "silenced" either. They can lose their licenses for practicing substandard medicine.
 
Old 08-07-2018, 09:22 PM
 
3,330 posts, read 919,781 times
Reputation: 2570
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
We get it. You do not like statins.
I don't think you get it. I don't think you understand why there is a controversy. I don't think you understand why the issue is complex, and why no one has complete answers. I don't think you understand human nature and bias. I don't think you understand why it's important to only give drugs to patients who need them and who are likely to benefit.

I don't think you understand that human knowledge is limited and natural systems are complex.

I learned a lot from writing this thread. I already knew a lot of the problems with statins, but now I have looked into the subject in more depth. I have posted information that SuzyQ cannot argue with, yet she persists in distracting.

I linked a JAMA article in the same issue as the one she had linked. Hers was to show that statins are effective. Mine explained that most of the people taking them will not benefit, and may be harmed.

She ignored it. As usual, she posts a flurry of information unrelated to any of the points I have been making. She is hoping that readers will be confused and give up trying to see the point of this thread.

She has done the same thing repeatedly. But this time I had a chance to prove that statins are controversial, and the benefits have been greatly exaggerated.

So much of what you hear about statins is advertising PR. They are the greatest drug ever, almost every older person should be on them, etc.

Then you look at the facts, and the story is very, very different.

There are patients who need statins to survive. But most people do not. And possible harm from long-term use is not known. And interactions with other drugs is not known.

We have good reasons to distrust the drug industry. The general public is too trusting of medical doctors, and medical doctors are too trusting of the drug companies.
 
Old 08-07-2018, 09:30 PM
 
3,330 posts, read 919,781 times
Reputation: 2570
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
And, you know what? If you have side effects from a statin, they almost always go away if you stop taking them.
Oh really? You know that how? Because the drug companies say so?


And how many people, right now, have been convinced their muscle pain and weakness is from old age, not from statins? How many people suffer year after year, unable to function normally or enjoy their lives, because they are taking a drug they do not need, that is very unlikely to help them in any way?

WHY IS THAT OK IN YOUR OPINION?
 
Old 08-07-2018, 09:41 PM
 
3,330 posts, read 919,781 times
Reputation: 2570
https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3306/rr/699027

"Safety studies should take into account the situations in clinical practice in which statins are taken (along with other drugs, with several diseases, age groups not included in the clinical trials, etc).
The issue is more complicated because of the lack of access to the raw data from the clinical trials, and its funding by Pharma. In many occasion side effects data is collected in clinical trials but not reported in the scientific papers."
 
Old 08-07-2018, 09:45 PM
 
3,330 posts, read 919,781 times
Reputation: 2570
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/52/14/905

"A bitter dispute has erupted among doctors over suggestions that statins should be prescribed to millions of healthy people at low risk of heart disease. There are concerns that the benefits have been exaggerated and the risks have been underplayed. Also, the raw data on the efficacy and safety of statins are being kept secret and have not been subjected to scrutiny by other scientists. This lack of transparency has led to an erosion of public confidence. Doctors and patients are being misled about the true benefits and harms of statins, and it is now a matter of urgency that the raw data from the clinical trials are released."
 
Old 08-07-2018, 11:46 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,481 posts, read 26,078,274 times
Reputation: 26426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Oh really? You know that how? Because the drug companies say so?


And how many people, right now, have been convinced their muscle pain and weakness is from old age, not from statins? How many people suffer year after year, unable to function normally or enjoy their lives, because they are taking a drug they do not need, that is very unlikely to help them in any way?

WHY IS THAT OK IN YOUR OPINION?
https://utswmed.org/medblog/statins-answers/

"Muscle aches occur in about 10 percent of people who take statins. It’s the most common side effect of statins, but another way to look at it is that nine out of 10 patients don’t experience it at all.

"When patients do have muscle pain:

When the medication is switched or stopped, the symptoms go away and there is no damage to the muscle.
Actual muscle damage occurs in only 1 in 10,000 patients. In the rare event that muscle damage occurs, it is almost always reversible. "


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...article/766834

"In this study, patients with statin-associated myopathy experienced full resolution of muscle pain on the cessation of statin therapy."



Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3306/rr/699027

"Safety studies should take into account the situations in clinical practice in which statins are taken (along with other drugs, with several diseases, age groups not included in the clinical trials, etc).
The issue is more complicated because of the lack of access to the raw data from the clinical trials, and its funding by Pharma. In many occasion side effects data is collected in clinical trials but not reported in the scientific papers."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/52/14/905

"A bitter dispute has erupted among doctors over suggestions that statins should be prescribed to millions of healthy people at low risk of heart disease. There are concerns that the benefits have been exaggerated and the risks have been underplayed. Also, the raw data on the efficacy and safety of statins are being kept secret and have not been subjected to scrutiny by other scientists. This lack of transparency has led to an erosion of public confidence. Doctors and patients are being misled about the true benefits and harms of statins, and it is now a matter of urgency that the raw data from the clinical trials are released."
The author of your links is expressing an opinion.

She has had some problems.

ABC television science presenter Dr Maryanne Demasi to be sacked | Daily Mail Online

"After an internal review, the ABC found the episode featuring Dr Demasi's report on Wi-Fi breached accuracy and impartiality standards and the show will be 'subject to a root and branch shake up' as a result."

Sounds like while she cries bias in statin research she has some biases of her own.

There were also some irregularities in her PhD thesis.
 
Old 08-08-2018, 05:49 AM
 
3,330 posts, read 919,781 times
Reputation: 2570
And you ignored this one https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3306/rr/699027

You ignore everything I say that proves you are wrong.

Stop trying to sell drugs. Stop interfering with my thread and distracting from the important information.
 
Old 08-08-2018, 06:21 AM
 
3,330 posts, read 919,781 times
Reputation: 2570
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
"Muscle aches occur in about 10 percent of people who take statins. It’s the most common side effect of statins, but another way to look at it is that nine out of 10 patients don’t experience it at all.
That is NONSENSE. Only 10 percent get muscle pain if they DO NOT EXERCISE. For people who use their muscles, the percentage is much higher! I posted that and you ignored it!!!

And not just pain, also WEAKNESS! This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you should want to happen. Being physically active and having strong muscles is one of the best ways to prevent these modern diseases.

You should read things other than drug company marketing propaganda.
 
Old 08-08-2018, 08:07 AM
 
Location: A place that's too cold
4,077 posts, read 4,046,849 times
Reputation: 10057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2584032

A comment on the pro-statin article SuzyQ linked. In the same journal and issue.

"Statins for Primary Prevention The Debate Is Intense, but the Data Are Weak"

"This issue of JAMA contains the latest US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on statins for prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults,1 along with the accompanying evidence report and systematic review2 on which the recommendations are based. The evidence report summarized data from 19 trials including a total of 71 344 patients and concluded that statin therapy was associated with reduced risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events.Thus, the task force recommended “initiating use of low- to moderate-dose statins in adults aged 40 to 75 years without a history of CVD who have 1 or more CVD risk factors and a calculated 10-year CVD event risk of 10% or greater (B recommendation)” or “7.5% to 10% (C recommendation).”1
Although the task force did their usual careful job of reviewing the evidence, the evidence for treating asymptomatic persons with statins does not appear to merit a grade B or even a grade C recommendation."
The part that I changed to purple seems to contradict the part I changed to orange. What am I misunderstanding?

The purple is talking about people with no history of CVD, but at least one risk factor (which, per NIH, would include high cholesterol, or age >55 ---both of which apply to me---among others), and gives a B or C recommendation (based on "calculated 10-yr CVD risk," which I assume is calculated from those risk factors). I do take a statin, and fall squarely into this purple category. Ok, good imo, my treatment gets a B or C.

But then the orange part says use of statins by asymptomatic people (that's me) does not get even a B or C recommendation. Not good, imo.

Can someone explain this contradiction?
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top