last published cochrane review on a meta-analysis of effect of statins (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jan 19;(1):CD004816.) MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen randomised control trials (16 trial arms; 34,272 participants) were included. Eleven trials recruited patients with specific conditions (raised lipids, diabetes, hypertension, microalbuminuria). All-cause mortality was reduced by statins (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95) as was combined fatal and non-fatal CVD endpoints (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.79). Benefits were also seen in the reduction of revascularisation rates (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83). Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were reduced in all trials but there was evidence of heterogeneity of effects. There was no clear evidence of any significant harm caused by statin prescription or of effects on patient quality of life. the evidence is more clear then you believe. There are medical theories that are controversial, like cancer stem cells, but this is pretty solid. LDL and HDL evolved as a necessary means of distributing lipids to various organs and tissues for usage, and is crucial for cell membrane integrity. The problem is that for majority of human (and animal) evolution, it is marked by a scarcity of food, so increased absorbency and distribution of dietary lipids (and also de novo synthesis) generally result in increased health and fitness. However, with lifestyles that are calorie rich and exercise poor (relatively speaking), too much a previously good thing is now bad. Yes, diet and exercise help tremendously with lowering LDL levels. However, there is a part of it that is genetically pre-determined (and so dependent on the person), and with high enough levels, along with presence of other cardiovascular risk factors, it's not a bad idea to go on statins. It's great that you are aware of your health and is maintaining a healthy lifestyle, which is more than most people. But know that most western medicine practiced is evidence-based medicine, and the intra-criticism is very harsh, so whatever that makes it out of the clinical trials have already gone through layers and years of research, testing, research, and more testing.
I'm not on them even though my Dr. says I should be, but my question to you is "why take it as religion" that they don't help.
He would have a deeper knowledge to make a statement about the medicine then someone who doesn't have a medical background... and he's understanding of the medicine therefore would have more credibility. If someone is giving medical-based advice, asking if they are a Dr. is a fair question.
Sounds like you're in a great mind set! I'm 46yo, using a local coach, makes a huge difference competing against those pesky 28 yo's. and keeping the mind from stressing over the weather tomorrow.
Medicine has its limitations. We do not have the cure for all ailments, nor a complete understanding. A partial understanding may be helpful, or it may not. Where medicine does have the cure, ie. malaria, I am all for it. Where it doesn't, however, a partial understanding of the subject can be helpful, or unhelpful. This is the case with statins. In that case, until a complete and conclusive cure is found, I'd rather err on the side of caution and avoid the extremely serious side-effects. I would also be willing to try things that have worked, even if we don't understand why they have worked. Obviously, this carries a risk of side-effects. I would minimize those. Statins have EXTREMELY serious side-effects, and there are plenty of studies to show that they are addressing the wrong symptoms, so I wouldn't try them. Green tea, etc., don't have harmful effects when taken in appropriate doses. I would try that, as well as other Eastern treatments. Hopefully, I won't have to make the decision.
I think the malaria reference is comical, given they have some rather extreme side-effects known, and no they don't even work on all strains...
Thank you. I forgot to mention my diet, I am careful about what I eat. No burned stuff, fruits, veggies, nuts, herbs, healthy oils, and some lean meats. I have cut out pretty much all bread and pasta. When forced to eat a sandwich, I throw away half the bread and make it an open faced sandwich. My one weakness is chocolate. I know dark chocolate is good for you but I find it too bitter unless it has the orange rind in it--I like the sweet milk chocolate. I am done fighting my cravings. I can't stop once I start...I devour all chocolate within sight.
It might be a bad example, but I am sure you know what I mean, and there are extreme/boundary cases for everything. We can argue those outliers to death...we are both trying to get to the meat of the matter, are we not?
The issue is you are arguing statins outlier effects are the norm. That is causing some people to raise eyebrows. Mind you, I have no love for statins. We might as well be arguing about bevacizumab, gabapentin, or whatever else. I really don't care one way or the other, we are talking about a tool here, not a religious principle/belief. A tool that has hundreds of studies, some good, some bad, analyzing its pros/cons. The most comprehensive aggregated result of that work has already been posted in this thread. (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jan 19;(1):CD004816.) Read the full paper, and give a non-emotional/rational issue you have with the presented work.
By how much exactly? Per 100? 1? (As per Lipitor's numbers) But you missed this part...tsk tsk... "Only limited evidence showed that primary prevention with statins may be cost effective and improve patient quality of life." Meanwhile, how about we hear from another happy customer: "I was put on Mevacor after a mild heart attack 7 years ago. After about 1 1/2 years I began having severe muscle pains, memory lapses, worsening of a cataract and hand tremor. When I read about the relationship of statins to memory loss, I discontinued taking it. Within two weeks, the pain was almost gone, I could feel my mind clear up and the hand tremor totally disappeared. After doing a lot of reading and research, it seems to be pretty clear that our bodies need cholesterol. Several studies show lower overall mortality rates in women with higher cholesterol--what is the point of taking something that is not life- saving and produces disabling side effects?" OR... "I was put on statin 2 months ago when my LDL was on borderline level without previous heart attack. Soon after that, I experienced muscle spasm and tiredness. I discovered this article a month after taking the statin and immediate stopped the medication. Instead I went on natural supplements combined with dietary control and exercise. I feel much better and alert now but still have my muscle spasm. I hope it will go away soon. A follow up blood test will confirm that I did the right thing. I think it is very irresponsible of doctors to immediately prescibe statin without considering alternative means. Pharmaceutical companies are equally quilty in pushing this harmful drug. " GREAT! Well, at least he'll have something to remember the drug by....spasms!
Yes, because that's what the Drug Companie's rep tells them to use. And they do, without questioning.
And the guy who linked it to a Vitamin C deficiency won TWO, all by himself! http://www.whale.to/b/cassel3.html#Finding_a_cure_ "...Pauling being an honored member of the Academy, one of the founders of modern chemistry and molecular biology, and recipient of two Nobel Prizes."
His Nobel prizes for 1954: Chemistry -- for elucidation into chemical structure 1962: Peace -- for campaign against nuclear testing He is notable for many medical discoveries, including that sickle cell is a genetic disease resulting from a proline to valine mutation where the protein confirms in a beta sheet formation vs. alpha helix. However, his vitamin C theories has been highly debated in the community. I remember most of his vitamin C work has been on treatment of cancer, which the trials turned out to be a giant biased fiasco with the Mayo clinic. There was so much fingers pointing to fraud in that case that no one will touch it with a ten foot long pole, with good reasons. I have not heard of vitamin C for treatment of atherosclerosis. Does he recommend supra-doses? Or just prevention of scurvy? At the deficiency levels required for cardiovascular disease, are there concurrent symptoms of collagen malformation? Why are the majority of patients with cardiovascular disease not bleeding from the gums or showing other signs of scurvy?
That is an interesting mechanism of arteriosclerosis, but doesn't not take into consideration endothelial dysfunctioning or immune infiltration, both crucial in plaque formation. Nor does it mention that individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta or other genetic collagen disorders (either in human or animal models) do not have arteriosclerosis, which would be a natural disease model for this pathology. The actual evidence for that model is weak, based on only a few papers with mostly in vitro work. You can make anything work in the test tube given the right conditions, but whether it actually exist in vivo is completely empirical and must be tested. In skimming the literature on vitamin C, linus, and atherscolerosis, most of his peer reviewed articles are in the journal of orthomolecular medicine, which has a SRJ factor of 0.03 and does not exist on isic knowledge impact factor ranking. While he has published a fair bit (as well as others in his institute) on this subject, its mostly reviews, hypothesis, and case reports. Either there are no reputable laboratories in different institute working on this subject, or its not a topic that gets funding (which is unlikely given how much private industry would be willing to invest in this and the implications of this research), or it's generally negative data that is unpublishable. The primary data, especially in vivo and clinical data, that would otherwise make this a solid argument is lacking. In any case, most would agree that this should be treated with skepticism until more convincing data appears.
I think the bottom line to me is this. Whether or not higher Cholesterol is unhealthy or not, the fact of the matter is: 1-There are completely safe and natural ways to reduce your cholesterol. 2-Your Doctor will never recommend them. Ever.
EVERY doctor I know (and I know a lot), recommends diet and exercise as the first line therapy for high cholesterol. Our guidelines even state that if you don't believe that. The PROBLEM is the vast majority people have that go in one ear and out another. They want the 'easy' fix and want to keep eating triple bigmacs. The majority of doctors will also then prescribe Generics (no drug company big bucks there, they want docs to prescribe their fancy labeled drugs) That said, a certain subset of people need medication, no way around it.
Well, considering each year 100 Million prescriptions for Statins are written, they are doing a pathetic job.
Doctors don't force meds on people.* Amusing you ignored the rest of my post, which makes me very curious.... what would you do when your patient will not diet or exercise despite repeated suggestions/professional recommendations/etc, and their lipid penal is through the roof? It would be unethical NOT to then prescribe a statin. It is the best tool we have in those circumstances. Mind you there are other medications, but as far as quality of life is concerned, they don't nearly work as well. *Unless risk to self/others/etc, blah blah blah
Fact is, BOTH my parents, who are in generally very good shape were put on Lipitor. They never "failed after repeated requests". My mom got off only after a few weeks due to muscle pain. My father just went in for an angiogram, came back with a prescription for Lipitor. I asked him why, and he said the doctor said "I prescribe this to everyone". Holy cow.
Did you mother's lipid panel fail to improve over a given period of time? Because in that case clearly her approach wasn't working. Not implying she didn't exercise or diet, but for some individuals their genetics predispose them to higher cholesterol levels. Oh, and no one just goes in for an angiogram...not exactly routine screening. Was your father having chest pain? exertional fatigue? left arm weakness? abnormal EKG readings? And what were the results of the angiogram? If there was blockage in the cornary arteries, then it would make sense for the doctor to prescribe a known cholesterol lowering drug to help decrease the cholesterol plaque that had build up there. In fact, that is what they do for everyone with clogged arteries. It is what doctors do, to try to reverse pathology so people can be healthy. Unfortunately, not everyone is healthy as a horse, even when they really try. Perhaps aid of scared bovine would indeed help.
A critical review of thirteen clinical trials, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reveals some startling facts about statins: -Statin drugs save zero lives. -Statins are utterly useless as prevention. -Even in people with high cholesterol, statins don't reduce the risk of death one iota. -There has never been a single study that demonstrated statins extend life for women. http://www.naturalnews.com/z001268_statins_statin_drugs.html
Interesting editorial. Did you read the paper? Unfortunately that website does not mention the manual script title or authors, making it impossible to judge for myself what the results of the study were. Would definitely prove an interesting read
BTW, I asked my mother how she came to have a prescription for a statin, and you know what she said? Words to the effect of... "The doctor found my cholesterol level to be too high and when he wanted to prescribe me Lipotor I asked "Isn't there some natural way for me to get it down?" and he said "I'm not trained to get it down by natural means". And of course he's not. So, big surprise, "here's your pill". I'm done here. Wes
In regards to 'natural', did your mother ask for ways to reduce her risk by lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise? Or did she mean herbs, supplements, acupuncture, or drugs that are not FDA approved. If the doctor said no to the former, then he is going against medical guidelines. If it is the latter, then he is correct in that it is unethical to advise something that has not been proven to work, or may possibly be dangerous because it is a substance or protocol not thoroughly tested or regulated by the FDA. It's true, we are not trained by 'natural means' because we do not have the testing for its safety and efficacy. I'm not saying those natural means don't work, but we (the scientific community) simply don't know enough about it to prescribe it, and it is not only hugely unethical, but also illegal, for doctor to prescribe untested methods.
