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 08-08-2018, 08:29 AM
 
3,347 posts, read 925,925 times
Reputation: 2571

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
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?
Yes I can explain it. An article recommended statins for people with no heart disease, as primary prevention. Then another article in the same journal commented on that recommendation, saying it doesn't really make sense based on the data.

It is very important to know there is a controversy about statins. It gets over-shadowed by the glowing reports from drug companies, and mainstream medical news. Those reports are deceptive and confusing.

There are many experts who question the recommendations which are now standard -- that everyone who is supposedly at risk for heart disease should be on preventative statins for life.

Benefits have not been shown in any research for those people. They subject themselves to damage for no reason.

 
Old 08-08-2018, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Florida
18,290 posts, read 18,545,587 times
Reputation: 20974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
There are many experts who question the recommendations which are now standard -- that everyone who is supposedly at risk for heart disease should be on preventative statins for life.

.
I'm over 70, smoke, drink and have moderately high BP.
Prime candidate, right? I must have very unusual doctors .

I get told to stop smoking, be careful with the alcohol and should probably get more exercise than I do.
It's never even been hinted at that I should be on a statin.
It's one thing to disagree with certain things but throwing
doctors and the medical profession in general, under the bus, is way past ridiculous.
 
Old 08-08-2018, 10:10 AM
 
3,347 posts, read 925,925 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
I'm over 70, smoke, drink and have moderately high BP.
Prime candidate, right? I must have very unusual doctors .

I get told to stop smoking, be careful with the alcohol and should probably get more exercise than I do.
It's never even been hinted at that I should be on a statin.
It's one thing to disagree with certain things but throwing
doctors and the medical profession in general, under the bus, is way past ridiculous.
Your doctors were sensible to not give you drugs. However, there are many articles that emphatically state that people at risk for heart disease should take statins for prevention. And a very large percentage of older Americans are taking them.

You are only one person, so your experience does not count as conclusive evidence. If we look at the data, it shows that statins are being greatly over-used.
 
Old 08-08-2018, 10:33 AM
 
Location: A place that's too cold
4,083 posts, read 4,052,014 times
Reputation: 10057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Yes I can explain it. An article recommended statins for people with no heart disease, as primary prevention. Then another article in the same journal commented on that recommendation, saying it doesn't really make sense based on the data.

It is very important to know there is a controversy about statins. It gets over-shadowed by the glowing reports from drug companies, and mainstream medical news. Those reports are deceptive and confusing.

There are many experts who question the recommendations which are now standard -- that everyone who is supposedly at risk for heart disease should be on preventative statins for life.

Benefits have not been shown in any research for those people. They subject themselves to damage for no reason.
So you're saying the purple part and the orange part were actually from two different articles? (Even though it all ran together in your post I quoted). And the writers of the two different articles came to two different conclusions?

I have been trying to follow this thread, but it's really hard to sort through. I think it was in this thread that someone previously said it comes down to which authority (or study or article, I would add) you're going to believe.

Statins made a huge reduction in my LDL in a matter of weeks. I went from an LDL in the 300s to less than 100. I already ate VERY healthy, didn't smoke, exercised regularly, was at optimal weight. There wasn't really more I could do to lower my cholesterol through improved lifestyle. I don't know why, but in my 50s my cholesterol (especially LDL) soared, after a lifetime of being around 170 total.

I wish this controversy wasn't so difficult to wade through and understand.
 
Old 08-08-2018, 11:06 AM
 
3,347 posts, read 925,925 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
So you're saying the purple part and the orange part were actually from two different articles? (Even though it all ran together in your post I quoted). And the writers of the two different articles came to two different conclusions?

I have been trying to follow this thread, but it's really hard to sort through. I think it was in this thread that someone previously said it comes down to which authority (or study or article, I would add) you're going to believe.

Statins made a huge reduction in my LDL in a matter of weeks. I went from an LDL in the 300s to less than 100. I already ate VERY healthy, didn't smoke, exercised regularly, was at optimal weight. There wasn't really more I could do to lower my cholesterol through improved lifestyle. I don't know why, but in my 50s my cholesterol (especially LDL) soared, after a lifetime of being around 170 total.

I wish this controversy wasn't so difficult to wade through and understand.
It is a difficult and complicated, and controversial, subject. But I will continue summarizing and trying to clarify.

The quote is from a criticism of an article linked by SuzyQ. It says what the task force, in the original article, recommended, and then it says why that recommendation should be questioned.

"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."
 
Old 08-08-2018, 11:15 AM
 
Location: A place that's too cold
4,083 posts, read 4,052,014 times
Reputation: 10057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
It is a difficult and complicated, and controversial, subject. But I will continue summarizing and trying to clarify.

The quote is from a criticism of an article linked by SuzyQ. It says what the task force, in the original article, recommended, and then it says why that recommendation should be questioned.

"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 orange part is very confusing. How and why, if this task force did their "usual and careful job of reviewing the evidence," did someone else (and who is this someone?) decide that evidence (and exactly what was this evidnce or lack thereof?) was insufficient to justify statin use?

As it is, you are just showing me 2 conflicting conclusions. Perhaps the details of the who, what, and why was previously discussed. As I said, there's been a lot here to wade through so maybe I missed those particulars.
 
Old 08-08-2018, 01:16 PM
 
3,347 posts, read 925,925 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
The orange part is very confusing. How and why, if this task force did their "usual and careful job of reviewing the evidence," did someone else (and who is this someone?) decide that evidence (and exactly what was this evidnce or lack thereof?) was insufficient to justify statin use?

As it is, you are just showing me 2 conflicting conclusions. Perhaps the details of the who, what, and why was previously discussed. As I said, there's been a lot here to wade through so maybe I missed those particulars.
If you read the article the quotes came from, you would probably understand. And I have summarized that information various times in this thread. It has to do with the number needed to treat, and with different categories of patients.

The only patients who really need statins are the ones whose cholesterol is extremely high because of a genetic defect. Their bodies do not process cholesterol correctly and as a result they often die young. These genetic defects are rare, and most of the people taking statins do not have them.

Another category of patients is those who already have heart disease. They seem to get a small benefit, but more than 80 patients would have to take statins for 5 years in order for one life to be saved.

The next category is people who seem to be at risk for heart disease. Maybe because they are overweight, smoke cigarettes, etc. This is called primary prevention. No real benefit has been shown for this category. And it is the LARGEST group of patients taking statin drugs! So this is where a lot of the criticism is aimed.

Statin advocates want to increase the number of people taking statins for primary prevention, even though there is no reason to think it would do them any good. About 250 of these patients would have to take a drug for 5 years for one person to benefit. That is not a meaningful benefit. And NO ONE'S life would be saved.

Statins do cause harm, but it is minimized or hidden by the drug companies. The most common harmful side effect is muscle pain and weakness. This causes people to exercise less, and that is the opposite of what doctors should want. Exercise is extremely helpful in preventing heart disease.

There are other harmful effects, but no one can be sure exactly how common they are, since so much data is hidden by the drug companies.

And at the beginning of a study, people who have side effects are usually excluded. So this will bias the result. Also, we do not know if side effects increase with long term use. Or what harmful effects may result from combining statins with other drugs.
 
Old 08-08-2018, 03:26 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,504,468 times
Reputation: 10314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
If you read the article the quotes came from, you would probably understand. And I have summarized that information various times in this thread. It has to do with the number needed to treat, and with different categories of patients.

The only patients who really need statins are the ones whose cholesterol is extremely high because of a genetic defect. Their bodies do not process cholesterol correctly and as a result they often die young. These genetic defects are rare, and most of the people taking statins do not have them.

Another category of patients is those who already have heart disease. They seem to get a small benefit, but more than 80 patients would have to take statins for 5 years in order for one life to be saved.

The next category is people who seem to be at risk for heart disease. Maybe because they are overweight, smoke cigarettes, etc. This is called primary prevention. No real benefit has been shown for this category. And it is the LARGEST group of patients taking statin drugs! So this is where a lot of the criticism is aimed.

Statin advocates want to increase the number of people taking statins for primary prevention, even though there is no reason to think it would do them any good. About 250 of these patients would have to take a drug for 5 years for one person to benefit. That is not a meaningful benefit. And NO ONE'S life would be saved.

Statins do cause harm, but it is minimized or hidden by the drug companies. The most common harmful side effect is muscle pain and weakness. This causes people to exercise less, and that is the opposite of what doctors should want. Exercise is extremely helpful in preventing heart disease.

There are other harmful effects, but no one can be sure exactly how common they are, since so much data is hidden by the drug companies.

And at the beginning of a study, people who have side effects are usually excluded. So this will bias the result. Also, we do not know if side effects increase with long term use. Or what harmful effects may result from combining statins with other drugs.
Lets summarize the salient "misconceptions" ( I'm being kind here) in this post..

1. The only patients who really need statins are the ones whose cholesterol is extremely high because of a genetic defect.

That would be the OPINION of a non medical professional here and completely FALSE

2. Another category of patients is those who already have heart disease....they seem to get a small benefit

There is NO controversy about the treatment of patients with heart disease particularly those who have had prior heart attacks. To suggest as you have that the benefit is "small" is not only FALSE it is DANGEROUS

Again keep in mind, not a medical professional making pronouncements about what patients should do

3. Primary Prevention and Statins, again OPINION of the OP not supported by the literature and contrary to current recommendations.

4. The harm caused by statins is overstated by the OP, no data is being "hidden by drug companies" at this point, once a drug is released there is no controlling the message...The number of patients that suffer muscle pains is small and easily treated by changing the medication.

5. At the beginning of a study, people who have side effects are usually excluded....WRONG again and the OP's lack of understanding and experience in research is showing. Once the study is started patient's aren't DROPPED for having side effects

6. Statins have been safely prescribed for decades at this point we have PLENTY of evidence of risks over the long term and drug drug interactions...

So essentially not a single "true" statement in the prior post....
 
Old 08-08-2018, 03:32 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,504,468 times
Reputation: 10314
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
So you're saying the purple part and the orange part were actually from two different articles? (Even though it all ran together in your post I quoted). And the writers of the two different articles came to two different conclusions?

I have been trying to follow this thread, but it's really hard to sort through. I think it was in this thread that someone previously said it comes down to which authority (or study or article, I would add) you're going to believe.

Statins made a huge reduction in my LDL in a matter of weeks. I went from an LDL in the 300s to less than 100. I already ate VERY healthy, didn't smoke, exercised regularly, was at optimal weight. There wasn't really more I could do to lower my cholesterol through improved lifestyle. I don't know why, but in my 50s my cholesterol (especially LDL) soared, after a lifetime of being around 170 total.

I wish this controversy wasn't so difficult to wade through and understand.
Kayanne....

Do continue to research and if you have concerns regarding your treatment definitely discuss with your physician

I would caution you against following any recommendations or reading too much into what Good4nothing writes...

She has an unreasonable axe to grind against statins and is clearly obsessed with a topic she really doesn't understand...

It would be dangerous to follow any advice she provides....
 
Old 08-08-2018, 03:38 PM
 
3,347 posts, read 925,925 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz View Post
Lets summarize the salient "misconceptions" ( I'm being kind here) in this post..

1. The only patients who really need statins are the ones whose cholesterol is extremely high because of a genetic defect.

That would be the OPINION of a non medical professional here and completely FALSE

2. Another category of patients is those who already have heart disease....they seem to get a small benefit

There is NO controversy about the treatment of patients with heart disease particularly those who have had prior heart attacks. To suggest as you have that the benefit is "small" is not only FALSE it is DANGEROUS

Again keep in mind, not a medical professional making pronouncements about what patients should do

3. Primary Prevention and Statins, again OPINION of the OP not supported by the literature and contrary to current recommendations.

4. The harm caused by statins is overstated by the OP, no data is being "hidden by drug companies" at this point, once a drug is released there is no controlling the message...The number of patients that suffer muscle pains is small and easily treated by changing the medication.

5. At the beginning of a study, people who have side effects are usually excluded....WRONG again and the OP's lack of understanding and experience in research is showing. Once the study is started patient's aren't DROPPED for having side effects

6. Statins have been safely prescribed for decades at this point we have PLENTY of evidence of risks over the long term and drug drug interactions...

So essentially not a single "true" statement in the prior post....
BlueDevilz's main argument against me seems to be that I am not a medical professional. However, I have provided links to ,and quotes from, articles supporting everything I said.

I did not link articles from alternative or natural medicine sources. I only linked articles from mainstream sources.

BlueDevilz has ignored all my supporting evidence. All he does is repeat the mainstream views, as if they should never be doubted. Instead of rational arguments, he effectively says "This is how it is, because this is how it was, and we must not question the experts."

Statins are very controversial and I proved that with the sources I provided. Of course there are many more sources, but I did not show them because they are not medical experts. I have read many patient reports of terrible adverse effects, and I have read many non-mainstream sources. But I know you will only believe mainstream experts, so that's what I showed. And you ignored it all BlueDevilz.

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