OT - Statins and You

[Jay Aitchsee]

Sir, good luck with your trial.
I think you should also monitor your blood lipid levels to see what's going on. A simple lipid panel ( total Cholesterol, HDL, LDL, Triglycerides) can be had for about $30. In some states, Florida for example, a blood test can be ordered and paid for on-line. The order is sent to you via email, you print it and take it to the lab, the blood is drawn, and the results are emailed to you in short order. Your state my vary . Try googling Walk-In Labs for an example of a vendor. This method beats fooling around with doctors and insurance for a relatively inexpensive test.
Let us know how the trial goes.
Jay

[dtsm]

This will certainly generate some interest on this forum

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.a ... id=1770218
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/healt ... .html?_r=0

Just don't shoot the messenger...

[Jay Aitchsee]

So in the Times article, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/healt ... .html?_r=0, we have this:

The architects of the guidelines say their recommendations are based on the best available evidence. Large clinical trials have consistently shown that statins reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes, but the committee concluded that there is no evidence that hitting specific cholesterol targets makes a difference. No one has ever asked in a rigorous study if a person’s risk is lower with an LDL of 70 than 90 or 100, for example.
Dr. Neil J. Stone, the chairman of the committee and a professor of preventive cardiology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, said he was surprised by what the group discovered as it delved into the evidence. “We deliberated for several years,” he said, “and could not come up with solid evidence for targets.”
Dr. Nissen, who was not a member of the committee, agreed. “The science was never there” for the LDL targets, he said. Past committees “made them up out of thin air,” he added.
The Department oy. f Veterans Affairs conducted its own independent review and came to the same conclusion. About a year ago, the department, the nation’s largest integrated health care system, dropped its LDL targets, said Dr. John Rumsfeld, the V.A.'s national director of cardiology

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Basically, as I read the news about the report, it says, if you meet certain "risk guidelines", take a cholesterol lowering drug - but don't worry about specific cholesterol levels (unless LDL>190). Maybe it's really not about cholesterol, after all - as some have been saying for quite some time. Maybe statins work, but through a different mechanism?

[Janknitz]

As I mentioned on the newer thread, there's a growing recognition that the lipid hypothesis does not explain the cause of cardiovascular disease, and the latest thinking is that inflammation is the root cause.

There's some evidence that statins have some modest anti-inflammatory properties, but other things are much more effective in reducing inflammation including diet (avoiding inflammatory trans fats and Omega 6 oils like canola and soy), keeping blood sugar under good control, getting adequate sleep, reducing stress, and treating infection. These lifestyle changes don't carry the same degree of risks as statins, including muscle pain and weakness, diabetes (a cause of inflammation!), and dementia.

And there are multiple studies showing higher all cause mortality, especially from cancer and infection, in people with lower total and LDL cholesterols. Already we are seeing these guidelines downplaying the cholesterol reduction role of statins. I would bet that in short order the drug companies may start even DENYING that cholesterol will be lowered by these drugs because it is beginning to dawn on researchers that increased cholesterol is PROTECTIVE, not harmful.

I think these latest guidelines are straight from the pharmaceutical industry seeing the handwriting on the wall. The scariest statement is this:

Roughly half the cholesterol panel members have financial ties to makers of heart drugs, but panel leaders said no one with industry connections could vote on the recommendations.

“It is practically impossible to find a large group of outside experts in the field who have no relationships to industry,” said Dr. George Mensah of the heart institute. He called the guidelines “a very important step forward” based on solid evidence, and said the public should trust them.

Trust them????

[idamtnboy]

Modifying a comment I've made before, all people in the medical industry who are knowledgeable about diets, nutrition, and heart disease, share one common attribute with all teachers of all religions in the world - there isn't a single one of them who has a lock on the truth, in spite of they think.

[Jay Aitchsee]

Not really shocking for those of us who've opted for a diet of minimally processed foods - the findings of study published in JAMA Internal Medicine 2/03/2014 concludes that added sugars from all sources increases the risk of dying from heart disease.

http://www.webmd.com/heart/news/2014020 ... rt-trouble

[Janknitz]

I sort of feel like "Bang .Head. Against. Desk." That they are just now getting it. Well, DUH!!!!!

My grandma, may she rest in peace, was a poor immigrant who never had a formal education. But she knew that diabetes was "sugar diabetes" (NOT "fat diabetes") and that people who had the "sugar diabetes" had heart problems too.

[Jay Aitchsee]

Well, DUH!!!!!

Hah! That's exactly what my wife said when I told her about the study.

[Jay Aitchsee]

http://health.yahoo.net/articles/heart/ ... art-health
Mediterranean Diet Beats Low-Fat for Heart Health

More on the questionable benefits of the low fat/statin approach to living longer.

[Janknitz]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10717 ... -good.html

Dr. Gajraj is a vascular surgeon who saw huge improvements when he stopped his statins, cut sugar out of his diet, and added natural fats.

My favorite line:

The results [of the 2011 Hunt 2 Study] for women were crystal clear. The lower a woman’s total cholesterol, the greater her risk of dying, either of heart disease or anything else, including cancer. This reflects findings in previous studies.

[idamtnboy]

I asked my doc about this a couple of months ago. He said, "Yes, there are some people who suffer an adverse reaction, about maybe 4 or 5%. The problem is their doctors aren't getting, or paying attention to, blood test results." Subsequently, twice as many folks suffer adverse reaction than should be the case. If their docs watched blood test results they could see when a person should be taken off statins, or revise the dosage. If they did, the adversely affected population would be only about 1 to 2% of those on statins.

Not too often an MD criticizes in general terms members of his profession.

[Jay Aitchsee]

"The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease" by Nina Teicholz
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... Dyahoo_itp
An interesting essay about how we came to be in this mess.

[Janknitz]

Statins linked to memory decline in the elderly
http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/hom ... bf8bd.html

[49er]

Statins linked to memory decline in the elderly
http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/hom ... bf8bd.html

I know someone whom that may be happening to. But I know if I expressed my concern, the person would deny it. Frustrating but nothing I can do about it.

Anyway, h-ll would freeze over before I ever took one even if it meant I had to strictly eat seaweed.

49er

[Janknitz]

I think it's very common. The rise in "dementia" may be linked. But since the population that typically has memory problems (aging adults) is the same population that takes statins, it's easy to miss/hide. Meanwhile, the same drug companies are racing to develop drugs to treat dementia. Win:win for them ...