Quote:
Originally Posted by B767drvr
|
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that statins are ineffective. The first landmark study was in the New England Journal of medicine I believe in 2004, which showed a 38% reduction in first myocardial infarctions when LDL > 160 was lowered with a statin. There have been dozens of good studies since. Atorvastatin lowers LDL by approx. 50% across the board, and greatly reduces the chance of a second heart attack at any LDL level. Sounds effective to me. The problem lies with citing studies from "nutrition"facts".org", which is more org than facts. I hardly "push" statins, in fact I have always given patients a chance on a low chol diet with some red rice yeast and flax seed oil first, but 95+% fail to reach an acceptable LDL target. Can statins have side effects--of course, but they are greatly exaggerated. Only 1 in 400,000 will have a statin induced rhabdomyolysis, 1 in 3500 will get a statin induce myopathy. About 5-7 % get some diffuse muscle aches, which can generally be managed with adequate hydration. Now balance that with the "side effects" of no statin therapy when warranted-----heart attacks, stroke, congestive heart failure, kidney failure and peripheral vascular disease. The efficacy of statin therapy (when indicated) is so well established that both medicare and private insurance quality assurance programs essentially demand their use, or a documented reason for not using them. It is actually true malpractice not to recommend statins when indicated, so I wouldn't be getting my information from "nutritionfacts.org"