Considering a statin? Read this first.
Options
cstehansen
Posts: 1,984 Member
http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-with-known-heart-disease/
This compiles information from studies on statins which were primarily funded by the pharma companies. Even with that, it still shows 39 people have to take a statin for 1 person to get any benefit. That means 38 get no benefit at all.
On the flip side, for every 10 people who take it 1 will have muscle damage.
If I factor in all the positives and negatives and extrapolate an average 250 people taking statins, the results will be:
6 fewer coronary events that do not result in death
3 fewer deaths
2 fewer strokes
25 people with muscle damage
5 more people with diabetes
209 who got neither benefit nor harm from taking the drug.
In my mind if only 11 out of 250 got benefit but 30 were harmed. That seems to go against the Hippocratic Oath of "First do no harm" if nearly 3 times more people were harmed by taking the drug than were helped.
This is especially enlightening when the claimed purpose of these is to lower cholesterol to reduce CVD, yet according to the article below "nearly 75 percent of patients hospitalized for a heart attack had cholesterol levels that would indicate they were not at high risk fora cardiovascular event."
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/majority-of-hospitalized-heart-75668
What benefit some get from statins seems to be related to lowering inflammation. Perhaps lowering Omega 6 intake (veg oils) and increasing Omega 3 is a more appropriate and effective way to reduce inflammation. Cutting processed carbs and sugar is another.
Rant over. Please resume regularly scheduled programming.
This compiles information from studies on statins which were primarily funded by the pharma companies. Even with that, it still shows 39 people have to take a statin for 1 person to get any benefit. That means 38 get no benefit at all.
On the flip side, for every 10 people who take it 1 will have muscle damage.
If I factor in all the positives and negatives and extrapolate an average 250 people taking statins, the results will be:
6 fewer coronary events that do not result in death
3 fewer deaths
2 fewer strokes
25 people with muscle damage
5 more people with diabetes
209 who got neither benefit nor harm from taking the drug.
In my mind if only 11 out of 250 got benefit but 30 were harmed. That seems to go against the Hippocratic Oath of "First do no harm" if nearly 3 times more people were harmed by taking the drug than were helped.
This is especially enlightening when the claimed purpose of these is to lower cholesterol to reduce CVD, yet according to the article below "nearly 75 percent of patients hospitalized for a heart attack had cholesterol levels that would indicate they were not at high risk fora cardiovascular event."
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/majority-of-hospitalized-heart-75668
What benefit some get from statins seems to be related to lowering inflammation. Perhaps lowering Omega 6 intake (veg oils) and increasing Omega 3 is a more appropriate and effective way to reduce inflammation. Cutting processed carbs and sugar is another.
Rant over. Please resume regularly scheduled programming.
11
Replies
-
If you read the second link, the primary contributor uses this info to say was should drop the LDL level guidelines down significantly mentioning numbers like 40-60. Before taking that too seriously, note the second to last paragraph about his affiliations:Fonarow has conducted research for GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer and serves a consultant and has received honorarium from Abbott, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer and Schering Plough companies.
Seems there isn't a pharma company out there that is NOT paying him.2 -
He covers all his bases doesn't he? Anyone waves money at him, he'll bite.1
-
He'll bite us, if we let him close enough.
Pushing LDL-C down may lower risk in some cases, but many labs now perform LDL-P (and other) particle counts, which according to lipidologists correlates more strongly with CVD.
0 -
He'll bite us, if we let him close enough.
Pushing LDL-C down may lower risk in some cases, but many labs now perform LDL-P (and other) particle counts, which according to lipidologists correlates more strongly with CVD.
What correlates even more strongly is how negative it is to have low HDL or high Trigs. That ratio, from what I can find is the single strongest indicator of risk if you are only looking at cholesterol. Getting to a ratio where HDL is a higher number than Trigs puts your risk pretty low regardless of LDL.3 -
Might want to watch this short video first, too.
Statins, Diabetes & Alzheimer’s
(David Perlmutter)
https://youtu.be/B_bO1toSqbg 2 -
cstehansen wrote: »What correlates even more strongly is how negative it is to have low HDL or high Trigs. That ratio, from what I can find is the single strongest indicator of risk if you are only looking at cholesterol. Getting to a ratio where HDL is a higher number than Trigs puts your risk pretty low regardless of LDL.
Do you have any links or a reference for this? I'd like to read up on it.
I just had my first lipid panel in years and my LDL and total cholesterol are up quite a bit. I'm worried my dr might be alarmed when I see her next. My triglycerides are low though, lower than my HDL (1.09 tri versus 1.42 HDL).
Thanks!1 -
Steph_Maks wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »What correlates even more strongly is how negative it is to have low HDL or high Trigs. That ratio, from what I can find is the single strongest indicator of risk if you are only looking at cholesterol. Getting to a ratio where HDL is a higher number than Trigs puts your risk pretty low regardless of LDL.
Do you have any links or a reference for this? I'd like to read up on it.
I just had my first lipid panel in years and my LDL and total cholesterol are up quite a bit. I'm worried my dr might be alarmed when I see her next. My triglycerides are low though, lower than my HDL (1.09 tri versus 1.42 HDL).
Thanks!
This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it is a good one to start:
http://www.docsopinion.com/2014/07/17/triglyceride-hdl-ratio/
It actually uses the more liberal trig/hdl ratio of less than 2 vs. the more strict of less than 1. It is a little easier to read if you aren't a total nerd like I am.
Here is a clinical study which states as a conclusion, "Although some lipid variables were associated with the extent of coronary disease, the ratio of triglycerides to HDL-cholesterol showed the strongest association with extent."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664115/
Here is another that actually adds in how to improve the ratio (although not needed by you it appears):
https://www.drsinatra.com/the-most-important-cholesterol-ratio-to-watch
And one more which has tips on talking to your doc if your ratio is good but your total is high and the doc wants to put you on a statin:
http://dietheartnews.com/2013/06/triglycerides-not-cholesterol-is-the-bona-fide-risk-factor-for-coronary-heart-disease/
Hope these help.2 -
If you're using the standard lipid panel (Total, HDL, LDL, Trigs, VLDL) instead of the more detailed NMR lipoprotein particle test, then Trig/HDL is about as good as you can get. (Best of all would be to look at Trig, HDL, LDL-P and lipoprotein(a)....)
Triglycerides bounce around - so it's crucial to have a LONG, full fast before the Trig sample is collected. (I've seen recommendations of 16 hours - much easier now than it was in the olden LF days!)
1 -
Thanks very much @cstehansen those are all very helpful articles!1
