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.
I wouldn't know. I don't need any prescription medications, so my doctor and I don't discuss them.
However, it's no secret that statins are dangerous drugs. You're not telling anyone what they already don't know.
Yeah but, they are still being given to all the fat old people. Statins increase the risk of diabetes, and they cause muscle pain and weakness, and cataracts. Ever wonder why every old person is getting cataract surgery?
Statins probably cause other miseries if taken long enough. Yet they are one of the best selling prescription drugs.
In all, Statins have made (T)rillions of dollars, yet seem to take more years off their patients lives than add.
In other words, patients are paying for drugs that are causing them to feel 'unwell' and die earlier.
What kind of evil would you say that is?
Haha, can't help thinking this is kind of funny. The best selling drug does nothing but make people sick and die sooner. How can medical professionals be this stupid?
Listen I try to avoid interacting with you so much as possible. It appears to me you are smart guy who sees deceit and conspiracy everywhere.
There are many - dozens at least - research studies that show statins decrease the risk of stroke and cardiovascular events in patients 75 and younger.
Save yourself some time and scroll down to the consolidated results of 29 studies.........
"We identified 29 eligible trials involving a total of 80 711 participants. All-cause mortality was significantly lower among patients receiving a statin than among controls .........."
Most of the statin research is deceptive and contrived. They might find a tiny relative risk reduction, which happens to be statistically significant, but not necessarily clinically significant. And most importantly, they average in people who have a genetic defect that causes early death from heart disease. And this CAN be prevented by statins!
So, for a tiny minority, cholesterol-lowering drugs are life-saving. For everyone else, they are worse than useless.
I suspect they are now teaching courses in medical doctoral programs on how to do deceptive research.
The study I linked to earlier is actually a meta-analysis of 35 high quality RCTs on various statins. They attempted to adjust for covariates and attract a signal of benefit vs risk. What they found is either no benefit to incredibly marginal (for every 100 patients on Statins, it will prevent 1 heart attack, therefore 99 took it for no benefit, only risk and toxicity).
About one in a hundred people have a genetic defect that causes extremely high cholesterol, and these people die young without cholesterol-lowering drugs. For everyone else, they are harmful and useless. The research shows that statins work ON AVERAGE to prevent CV disease!
Statin should ONLY be given to that small minority of people who actually need them.
I don't take them. But many people do. They do, because the process is corrupt, and their doctors don't know any better because they're spoon fed industry done studies through corrupt medical journals.
But, as we saw with COVID vaccines, even your statement is not necessarily true. They sure tried and force us to take the vaccine.
I seldom go to medical doctors, but last time I went, a very fat doctor told me I would die if I didn't take statins. My HDL was very high for some reason. High HDL is NOT a risk factor for CV disease.
Well, it is true, I WILL die if I don't take statins. And I will die if I DO take them, but I won't be as healthy.
One of the worst things about statins is they cause muscle pain and weakness, making people less likely to exercise. And exercise is the BEST way to prevent heart disease! NOT THE STUPID DRUGS!
What we have is clinical trials and groups of people, as the average doctor will use these to dole out prescriptions.
A good doctor understands both his patient and the drug, and can 'artfully' prescribe medications even when clinical trials show no benefit, can show benefit to his patient.
This is why it was ABSURD, during the COVID crises, there was intense pressure on docs to not prescribe Ivermectin, HCQ or really anything but the approved of treatments. I'm the first one to advocate for personalized medicine. Clinical trials should inform, and then meta analysis can be used to extract proper dosages, cohorts etc for the medicine.
But that being said, the average doctor-patient relationship cannot be described this way. And I think everyone knows that.
Clinical RCTs cost a lot of time and money. And they can be very deceptive and/or defective. Doctors should be allowed to use their experience and common sense, but they are not.
Most of the statin research is deceptive and contrived. They might find a tiny relative risk reduction, which happens to be statistically significant, but not necessarily clinically significant. And most importantly, they average in people who have a genetic defect that causes early death from heart disease. And this CAN be prevented by statins!
So, for a tiny minority, cholesterol-lowering drugs are life-saving. For everyone else, they are worse than useless.
I suspect they are now teaching courses in medical doctoral programs on how to do deceptive research.
A lot of what we think we know about cholesterol is wrong.
I remember when it was assumed that a diet high in cholesterol leads to high serum cholesterol. This led to the assumption eggs and lobster were bad for you. This has turned out to be false, but was medical wisdom for decades.
Now, evidence is emerging that LDL (bad) cholesterol might not be bad, in contrary it could very well be good.
Quote:
Overall, they reported that 16 cohorts (representing 92% of individuals in the review) of 28 examining all-cause mortality found an inverse relationship between LDL cholesterol and all-cause mortality. That is, as LDL cholesterol went down, all-cause mortality went up – higher LDL was apparently linked to lower all-cause mortality. In 14 of these 16, this was said to be a statistically significant link. The remaining 12 cohorts found no link with all-cause mortality.
Increasingly, we're beginning to understand how autoimmunity
Quote:
Atherosclerosis (AT) was once considered to be a degenerative disease that was an inevitable consequence of aging. However, researches in the last three decades have shown that AT is not degenerative or inevitable. It is an autoimmune-inflammatory disease associated with infectious and inflammatory factors, characterized by lipoproteins metabolism alteration that leads to immune system activation with the consequent proliferation of smooth-muscle cells, narrowing arteries and atheroma formation (3). Both humoral and cellular immune mechanisms have been proposed to participate in the onset and/or progression of atheromatous lesions (4). In recent years, many reports have been focused on the immunologic background of AT, and it is no longer in doubt that shares several autoimmune pathways (5). It is not surprising, to find an accelerated AT in quite a lot of ADs.
Several risk factors have been described since The Framingham Heart Study, known as classic risk factors, which over time conduce to endothelial dysfunction, subclinical AT and Cardiovascular (CV) event manifest. Interestingly, the excessive CV events observed in patients with ADs are not fully explained by these factors. Several novel risk factors contribute to development of premature vascular damage. Sarmiento-Monroy et al. (6,7) previously proposed a classification for non-traditional risk factors in ADs, which divide them into genetic determinants, AD-related and miscellaneous. Therefore, a complex interaction between traditional and disease-specific traits leads to premature AT process in autoimmunity.
Of course, diet is important here, but not in ways believed. Most of your immune cells are in your gut (around 70%). Your immunity plays a delicate of not attacking 'good bacteria' or responding to foreign antigens (proteins in food) but at the same time needs to attack 'bad bacteria' or even 'good bacteria' if they cross the mucosal barriers or become too prolific. Fasting gives your immune system a break, and allows for repair throughout your body.
A lot of things we think we know will be false in 20-30 years.
A lot of what we think we know about cholesterol is wrong.
I remember when it was assumed that a diet high in cholesterol leads to high serum cholesterol. This led to the assumption eggs and lobster were bad for you. This has turned out to be false, but was medical wisdom for decades.
Now, evidence is emerging that LDL (bad) cholesterol might not be bad, in contrary it could very well be good.
Of course, diet is important here, but not in ways believed. Most of your immune cells are in your gut (around 70%). Your immunity plays a delicate of not attacking 'good bacteria' or responding to foreign antigens (proteins in food) but at the same time needs to attack 'bad bacteria' or even 'good bacteria' if they cross the mucosal barriers or become too prolific. Fasting gives your immune system a break, and allows for repair throughout your body.
A lot of things we think we know will be false in 20-30 years.
But but but the science is settled!!
The most UNSCIENTIFIC statement ever made.
Science by definition is never settled.
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.
