[Villages PL]

About 20 million people take statin drugs to lower their cholesterol. But 3/4 of them take statins with no evidence of heart disease, and it's now being questioned whether this approach is of any value. Eleven clinical trials have now been conducted (with over 65,000 people) and the results showed no evidence of statins saving lives.

For those who are big believers in taking drugs to promote good health, this is an example of a drug possibly doing the opposite, assuming some may have suffered side effects needlessly. And not to mention the expense of it.

People, in my opinion, could do far better by lowering bad cholesterol through natural means.

[KayakerNC]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

About 20 million people take statin drugs to lower their cholesterol. But 3/4 of them take statins with no evidence of heart disease, and it's now being questioned whether this approach is of any value. Eleven clinical trials have now been conducted (with over 65,000 people) and the results showed no evidence of statins saving lives.

For those who are big believers in taking drugs to promote good health, this is an example of a drug possibly doing the opposite, assuming some may have suffered side effects needlessly. And not to mention the expense of it.

People could do far better by lowering bad cholesterol through natural means.

Actually, people would do far better by listening to their Doctor and ignoring this kind of non-supported "information".
Google the JUPITER trial, or read the WebMD article.
Statins for Lowering Cholesterol Levels

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

Actually, people would do far better by listening to their Doctor and ignoring this kind non-supported "information".
Google the JUPITER trial, or read the WebMD article.
Statins for Lowering Cholesterol Levels

So we're talking about one clinical trial (JUPITER) versus 11 clinical trials totaling over 65,000 people? As far as I can tell, the WebMD article didn't mention how many people were in the JUPITER trial, did they? Did all of those in the trial have extremely high cholesterol? Can you provide a link that will give more details? My time is limited so it would help if you could provide such a link. Was it a double blind study? Legnth of time?

Hopefully, I'll have more time tomorrow to read the WebMD article. I just read it over fast. Perhaps I got the wrong impression but it seems to not be interested in full disclosure.

[pooh]

If I remember correctly, the statins were used in participants who didn't necessarily have high blood fats, but did have higher levels of C-reactive protein levels...and indicator of inflammation. Statins were shown to reduced inflammation levels and they are considered safer than asprin therapy for many.

From the New England Journal of Medicine.... MMS: Error
Actually, I'm not certain the link will work, but there's lots to read.

Guess if we keep up this discussion, we're going to have to move over to the medical forum...

[Hal :-)]

The Jupiter trial was bought and paid for by Crestor. A study to determine if statins were effect for people with NORMAL cholesterol. What a joke. It worked well, I read somewhere a recommendation for young as 13 to take them. Thank you Big Pharma.

I learned long ago that our medical system doesn't working for us. All drug studies are funded by drug companies for one simple reason, generate profits. I learned my lesson when my wife refused HRT. I thought the simple treatment for menopause would make life easier for her. She was a nurse and had other ideas. Her mother died of breast cancer and she absolutely refused hormones.

After 20 years, a HRT study was suddenly cancelled and resulted in a recommendation for everyone to stop taking them immediately. I learned my lesson. I now believe that statins will someday be identified as a similar problem, when all the patents expire.

Statins produce a lot of muscular problems, especially in males. There's a real question if cholesterol is even a problem. Recent studies suggest that inflammation may the culprit (CRP). Although that concept may be driven by profits too, who knows. TNO (Trust No One).

In my opinion, you are on your own when it comes to your health in this country. Fortunately, there are good resources available and you can search the Internet. Just be careful to discriminate and keep an open mind.

[shcisamax]

My doctor told me that there really was no evidence that statins saved lives and did not recommend them automatically for moderately high cholestoral levels.
Further to the over prescribing for bottom line benefit of the pharmaceutical companies, there was recently released a series of studies of antidepressants which found, unless the person is very seriously depressed, they really don't do anything more than a placebo. And that the amount prescribed has increased to ridiculous proportions. I can't remember the numbers but it was really an eye opener.

[rubicon]

No one has mention the strength of the doses...How big of a dose (MG) create a problem 1 10 25 50 75 100 400?

[Hal :-)]

Originally Posted by rubicon

No one has mention the strength of the doses...How big of a dose (MG) create a problem 1 10 25 50 75 100 400?

That's a good question and I thought I'd Google it. But I quickly gave up. Too much medical jargon over my head. But this is interesting:

...many patients treated with statins have muscle symptoms, and some patients develop severe muscle toxicity. Little is known about the mechanism by which statin therapy leads to muscle toxicity. The recent withdrawal of cerivastatin from the U.S. market has highlighted both our ignorance and the need for postmarketing surveillance

Statin-Associated Myopathy with Normal Creatine Kinase Levels

[TrudyM]

An artery 96% closed by plaque is not an issue of inflamation. My husband and I were both given statin drugs at low levels to help with the colesterol build up in our arteries When the alternative is death I think I will go with the statin. After 4 years my arteries show much less paque than they did. I am checked on a regular basis for side effects. I have several Drs in my family and they all say that changing ones diet is not always enough that low level statins for those with a genetic predisposition are necessary.

[ssmith]

I work as a Cardiology nurse soooo I am biased. Once the damage to your heart has been done ...you, for the most part, cannot undo it!!! Remember that build up in your arteries goes everywhere....not just your heart....could be your carotids that supply blood flow to the brain, could be your legs or your kidneys.

Our American diet is not condusive to good artery health. Yes, the absolute best approach is a good diet and to do it early and exercise; but even then, you may have bad genes which contribute to the build-up of plaque in your arteries.

The number one killer in America, by far, over all diseases is heart disease!!!! and that includes women!!!!

Yes, this med must be carefully monitored....I, for one, can't take statins due to rising of liver enzymes.

As many Cardiologists say " we are saving lives one non-compliant patient at a time" Sad but true....everyone is bitter once the damage to the heart occurs ....or the STROKE! but little think it will happen to them. Another thing I hear is that the individual doesn't care if they die since they have had a good time but remember....not everyone dies right away. Also not everyone wants to live with a debilitating stroke.

Ok, now I will get off of my high horse!!! Just care about you all and want you to enjoy a healthy life as long as you can!

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by ssmith

I work as a Cardiology nurse soooo I am biased. Once the damage to your heart has been done ...you, for the most part, cannot undo it!!! Remember that build up in your arteries goes everywhere....not just your heart....could be your carotids that supply blood flow to the brain, could be your legs or your kidneys.

Our American diet is not condusive to good artery health. Yes, the absolute best approach is a good diet and to do it early and exercise; but even then, you may have bad genes which contribute to the build-up of plaque in your arteries.

The number one killer in America, by far, over all diseases is heart disease!!!! and that includes women!!!!

Yes, this med must be carefully monitored....I, for one, can't take statins due to rising of liver enzymes.

As many Cardiologists say " we are saving lives one non-compliant patient at a time" Sad but true....everyone is bitter once the damage to the heart occurs ....or the STROKE! but little think it will happen to them. Another thing I hear is that the individual doesn't care if they die since they have had a good time but remember....not everyone dies right away. Also not everyone wants to live with a debilitating stroke.

Ok, now I will get off of my high horse!!! Just care about you all and want you to enjoy a healthy life as long as you can!

Wonderful post and wonderful girl, SSmith. Refreshingly scientific!

It is just the luck of your genetic draw sometimes. I cook for our family and buy the food and my levels are low as were my parents. Sweetie does not have elevated cholesterol but is on statins due to being born with only one coronary artery and was prescribed it as a precaution. Our 46 year old daughter who lives with us has elevated levels, maybe also due to the fact she was born with Williams Syndrome. But we mostly eat the same food and she walks for one hour every day. We are seeing whether anything changes at the next test to see if she will choose to begin statins.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by ssmith

I work as a Cardiology nurse soooo I am biased. Once the damage to your heart has been done ...you, for the most part, cannot undo it!!!

Since you said, "for the most part", I agree. But when I started this thread, it didn't have that much to do with heart disease. (Well, okay, indirectly it did.) But it had more to do about people with elevated cholesterol, other risk factors, but otherwise healthy. These people represent 3/4 of the 20 million people on statins. It appears that the drug companies are doing their job well. And the report that I refered to was a "meta-analysis of eleven clinical trials involving more than 65,000 people."
On average, their LDL was lowered from 138 to 98. But lowering their LDL did not, "produce a measurable benefit by improving longevity." There was no evidence that statins saved any lives.

Our American diet is not condusive to good artery health. Yes, the absolute best approach is a good diet and to do it early and exercise; but even then, you may have bad genes which contribute to the build-up of plaque in your arteries.

I agree about the diet. And genes do play a part but I find that too many people are too quick to blame genes without really giving diet a fair shot.

Yes, this med must be carefully monitored....I, for one, can't take statins due to rising of liver enzymes.

And what about those who are taking multiple medications? What about adverse drug interactions? I think it could be dangerous. So, once again, I think we shouldn't be taking drugs unless it's absolutely necessary. All the more reason to pay attention to the study I refered to.

Note: Ray, K. K., et al. "A Meta-Analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials Involving 65220 Participants." Arch. Intern. Med. 2010; 170:1007-1008.

[KayakerNC]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

And the report that I refered to was a "meta-analysis of eleven clinical trials involving more than 65,000 people."

Note: Ray, K. K., et al. "A Meta-Analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials Involving 65220 Participants." Arch. Intern. Med. 2010; 170:1007-1008.

From Wiki:
"If a meta-analysis is conducted by an individual or organization with a bias or predetermined desired outcome, it should be treated as highly suspect or having a high likelihood of being "junk science". From an integrity perspective, researchers with a bias should avoid meta-analysis and use a less abuse-prone (or independent) form of research."

Attacking JUPITER - Statins For Primary Prevention Assailed
"Ironically, the chief author of this critical paper is himself a member of a fringe medical group known as The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS), whose stated mission is to "oppose" the notion that high cholesterol and animal fat play a role in cardiovascular disease. Members of THINCS also take an extraordinarily strong position opposing statins for any clincal use whatsoever. The irony, of course, is that this striking bias was not disclosed in an article whose main thrust was to criticise the disclosed biases of the JUPITER investigators."

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

From Wiki:
"If a meta-analysis is conducted by an individual or organization with a bias or predetermined desired outcome, it should be treated as highly suspect or having a high likelihood of being "junk science". From an integrity perspective, researchers with a bias should avoid meta-analysis and use a less abuse-prone (or independent) form of research."

Attacking JUPITER - Statins For Primary Prevention Assailed
"Ironically, the chief author of this critical paper is himself a member of a fringe medical group known as The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS), whose stated mission is to "oppose" the notion that high cholesterol and animal fat play a role in cardiovascular disease. Members of THINCS also take an extraordinarily strong position opposing statins for any clincal use whatsoever. The irony, of course, is that this striking bias was not disclosed in an article whose main thrust was to criticise the disclosed biases of the JUPITER investigators."

So where does this leave the patient or those of us who are trying to sort this out? It seems we're caught in the middle of a dispute: The JUPITER trial versus 4 articles published by Archives of Internal Medicine. Both sides are pointing fingers at the other. Well, that's my first impression.
I copied the article by richard N. Fogoros, M.D. and will give it a more careful reading (and more thought) later.

[ssmith]

Thanks Gracie for listening. Sorry about your hubs and daughter. I am sure it is not your cooking

.