Statins

[Pekelo]

This thread is for a general discussion on just how hard it is to change established medical guidelines and viewpoints even when the science already advance on an issue. And particulary about statins, because it is an excellent example how well meaning doctors can screw up health care for decades if they use science in the wrong way and nobody speaks up against their method...

So let's start with a picture:

Instead of me writing a lengthy posts, I will just include a couple of links and videos, that explains the issue better than I could. But I will provide the TL;DR.

Personally I got interested in statins when a few years ago my cholesterol was found to be slightly up and my doctor advised to take statins. Since I have a working brain, and I live in the age of internet, I researched the topic first. What I found was, in short that the science behind statin drugs is simply BULLSHIT.

Now let me make it clear, there are cases when taking statins is advised and helpful, but currently in America it is way over prescribed and big pharma does everything to make sure that more and more of the population would end up taking it, and surprise, surprise, for life...

So let's get started...

 

[userque]

there are cases when taking statins is advised and helpful,

What's your TL;DR on when statins are helpful? Thanks!

 

[NeoTrader]

This thread is for a general discussion on just how hard it is to change established medical guidelines and viewpoints even when the science already advance on an issue. And particulary about statins, because it is an excellent example how well meaning doctors can screw up health care for decades if they use science in the wrong way and nobody speaks up against their method...

So let's start with a picture:

Instead of me writing a lengthy posts, I will just include a couple of links and videos, that explains the issue better than I could. But I will provide the TL;DR.

Personally I got interested in statins when a few years ago my cholesterol was found to be slightly up and my doctor advised to take statins. Since I have a working brain, and I live in the age of internet, I researched the topic first. What I found was, in short that the science behind statin drugs is simply BULLSHIT.

Now let me make it clear, there are cases when taking statins is advised and helpful, but currently in America it is way over prescribed and big pharma does everything to make sure that more and more of the population would end up taking it, and surprise, surprise, for life...

So let's get started...

It is not bullshit... There are several well conducted studies that show the benefits of statins in a number of situations... The thing is, that the benefits in certain other situations are not yet well established, but THEORETICALLY, given the knowledge so far acquired by past studies, these benefits would be logically expected in a number of additional situations.
If your cholesterol is slightly elevated, maybe the elevation doesn't justify the use of statins by guidelines, but you could benefit from them nonetheless, maybe not. Guidelines are not written in stone, they evolve too.
So, if your doctor says that YOU HAVE to take statins in a situation not well established by current guidelines, he is indeed making a mistake.
But, if he fully informs you that there is a theoretical value in doing it, gives you a logical reason to do it and makes it clear that despite that, there are no current studies that prove this benefit and that if you agree to do so, he would prescribe them to you based on logic, then there is no harm in it. After all, he doesn't have proof that it will benefit you, but you may not want to wait for the years that all the studies and the stupid FDA bureaucracy, since that can be too late for you.
You have the right to make this INFORMED decision, even if there are no guidelines covering it.

 

[Pekelo]

The whole topic is so huge (starting with the asshole Ancel Keys and the 7 countries study) that I am not going to go into details everywhere, there are books written on the subject. But it is easier to watch then to read, so here is a starter:

Doesn't matter what you think of Dr. Oz, he is right on this one and he mentions that this episode is his most important one.

If you search for "cholesterol myth" on Youtube, you will find plenty, in depth hour long videos like this:

Here is my quick summary for conversation starters:

The whole science is flawed on cholesterol causing heart attacks and statins can prevent it. First, high levels of cholesterol isn't a good marker (no real, established correlation) for a future heart problem (half of heart attack patiens have normal cholesterol level). Second, statins don't prevent heart attacks in healthy individuals, and even when they help, they actually help by fighting inflammation and not by lowering the cholesterol level.

So who should take statins? If you had a cardiac arrest already or similar heart problem, sure, take statins.
But if you do so, take CoQ-10 coenzime with it, because statins suck this important coenzime out of the body and specially the heart muscle.

If you have high cholesterol you should check your Tryg/HDL ratio (should be under 2)

http://www.docsopinion.com/2014/07/17/triglyceride-hdl-ratio/

and the Total/HDL ratio (should be under 3.5)

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...expert-answers/cholesterol-ratio/faq-20058006

Those 2 ratios are way better markers than simply just checking your total cholesterol. Generally speaking high cholesterol isn't dangerous if your Tryg is low (below 150) and your HDL (good cholesterol) is high.

The best marker is for a possible heart problem is high Tryglicerids with inflammed small particle bad cholesterol (usually not measured).

For women over 55, taking statins is pretty much worthless and there is no statistical benefits. Wow, we just took out 40% or so of the possible statin market.

Of course there are also the funky issue of just what is considered high? (Once my total number was 201, and 201-239 considered elevated) Well, interestingly Big Pharma keeps pushing the standard of high to a lower and lower level and by this automatically making millions of people available for treatment. Why is it sad or dangerous? Certain insurance companies RAISE your insurance if you have elevated or high level of cholesterol )because you are in the high risk group) so you are basically FORCED to take statins unless you want to pay more for your health insurance.

Anyhow, if there are questions or someone wants to debate me, fire away...

 

[Pekelo]

What's your TL;DR on when statins are helpful? Thanks!

It is in post #4:

"So who should take statins? If you had a cardiac arrest already or similar heart problem, sure, take statins.
But if you do so, take CoQ-10 coenzime with it,"

By the way I have to mention, that there is such a thing as natural statin. Red Yeast Rice contains statins naturally, but costs 10-13$ instead of Lipitor's $120... What did Big Pharma do? They made sure that this can not appear on the bottle of RYR and they actually lobbied to remove the statin from it... I am not completely up to date on the issue, but certain RYR products now does not contain statin.

 

[Pekelo]

1.It is not bullshit... There are several well conducted studies that show the benefits of statins in a number of situations...
2.but you could benefit from them nonetheless, maybe not.
3.then there is no harm in it.

1. I promptly noted those situations.
2. So I should take a drug on a maybe that has a few pretty bad side effects and weakens my heart by taking CoQ-10 away?
3. I haven't addressed the unwanted side effects of statins, so this might be a good place for it:


The most common statin side effects include:

• Headache.
• Difficulty sleeping.
• Flushing of the skin.
• Muscle aches, tenderness, or weakness (myalgia)
• Drowsiness.
• Dizziness.
• Nausea or vomiting.
• Abdominal cramping or pain.

 

[algofy]

There's no value in dead people but also no value in really healthy people. It's to the advantage of the medical system to keep people in the middle. It's screwed up.

 

[NeoTrader]

The whole topic is so huge (starting with the asshole Ancel Keys and the 7 countries study) that I am not going to go into details everywhere, there are books written on the subject. But it is easier to watch then to read, so here is a starter:

Doesn't matter what you think of Dr. Oz, he is right on this one and he mentions that this episode is his most important one.

If you search for "cholesterol myth" on Youtube, you will find plenty, in depth hour long videos like this:

Here is my quick summary for conversation starters:

The whole science is flawed on cholesterol causes heart attacks and statins can prevent it. First, high levels of cholesterol isn't a good marker (no real, established correlation) for a future heart problem (half of heart attacj patiens have normal cholesterol level). Second, statins don't prevent heart attacks in healthy individuals, and even when they help, they actually help by fighting inflammation and not by lowering the cholesterol level.

So who should take statins? If you had a cardiac arrest already or similar heart problem, sure, take statins.
But if you do so, take CoQ-10 coenzime with it, because statins suck this important coenzime out of the body and specially the heart muscle.

If you have high cholesterol you should check your Tryg/HDL ratio (should be under 2)

http://www.docsopinion.com/2014/07/17/triglyceride-hdl-ratio/

and the Total/HDL ratio (should be under 3.5)

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...expert-answers/cholesterol-ratio/faq-20058006

Those 2 ratios are way better markers than simply just checking your total cholesterol. Generally speaking high cholesterol isn't dangerous if your Tryg is low (below 150) and your HDL (good cholesterol) is high.

The best marker is for a possible heart problem is high Tryglicerids with inflammed small particle bad cholesterol (usually not measured).

For women over 55, taking statins is pretty much worthless and there is no statistical benefits. Wow, we just took out 40% or so of the possible statin market.

Of course there are also the funky issue of just what is considered high? (Once my total number was 201, and 201-239 considered elevated) Well, interestingly Big Pharma keeps pushing the standard of high to a lower and lower level and by this automatically making millions of people available for treatment. Why is it sad or dangerous? Certain insurance companies RAISE your insurance if you have elevated or high level of cholesterol )because you are in the high risk group) so you are basically FORCED to take statins unless you want to pay more for your health insurance.

Anyhow, if there are questions or someone wants to debate me, fire away...

The relation of total cholesterol and especially LDL with coronary disease is well established in the Framingham study. This is one of the most serious and well conducted cohort studies in the history of medicine. The same study that established the connection of high BP with coronary disease.
And in the recent years, there has been a movement in medicine to prescribe statins, but not to elevate its dosage, even if the desired levels of choleterol are not reached, because of potential liver problems. So there is no conspiracy always pushing to further prescription of these drugs...Nothing is perfect in this world and I am always suspicious of everything and everyone, but in this matter, what has prevailed is seriousness, despite all the conspiracy theories.

 

[NeoTrader]

1. I promptly noted those situations.
2. So I should take a drug on a maybe that has a few pretty bad side effects and weakens my heart by taking CoQ-10 away?
3. I haven't addressed the unwanted side effects of statins, so this might be a good place for it:

View attachment 175846
The most common statin side effects include:

• Headache.
• Difficulty sleeping.
• Flushing of the skin.
• Muscle aches, tenderness, or weakness (myalgia)
• Drowsiness.
• Dizziness.
• Nausea or vomiting.
• Abdominal cramping or pain.

You're not supposed to do it. But some people may want to. You don't, that's fine. Don't take it, you're not making a mistake, since the benefit has not been proved. You may or may not be benefiting yourself. You're free to take risks, if you want to.
There is no evidence that statins weaken your heart. To state that, you have to prove it by study and not just any study. Methodology is EXTREMELY important in any kind of study, especially medical. Until such studies prove what you said, you may believe this and not take the drugs based on this BELIEF, but don't say that this is proven.
As for the side effects, I can tell you, as a physician, that I had NO patients that had ANY of the complains you listed. And there is not a single medicine leaflet that doesn't list all of these "potential" symptoms. The most common complaint from taking statins is "bilateral leg pain", which despite being the most common complaint, is something rare and deserves certain specific measures when it happens and you can simply stop taking the drugs and the pain goes away. But statins are among the drugs which patients less complain.

 

[Pekelo]

The relation of total cholesterol and especially LDL with coronary disease is well established in the Framingham study.

Let me amaze you with a simple fact: Half of heart attack sufferers have normal cholesterol levels. This is not a study, this is hard data.

So, how can be something a good marker for a disease, if it misses half of its sufferers?

Now we know I didn't win the Nobel prize in Math, but I should have. Why? Because when I first learnt about how TC (total cholesterol) is calculated, I called BS on my own, what was later backed up with common sense. Let's see, the component of TC are:

TC=LDL(bad ch) + HDL (good ch) + Trig/5 (20% of the Trygs)

Now to my fertile mind it made no sense to make a total number out of adding good and bad things together. Sure, making a ratio makes sense, or subtracting them from each other, but how the fuck one can make a standard level of cut off number by adding good and bad together? Nowadays even ledical science acknowledges that the TC number is kind of not that relevant.