B767drvr |
01-09-2016 02:14 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
(Post 1169070)
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"
|
Doc, with all due respect, I surmise your education in nutrition was very little in medical school and unless you've taken a personal interest your knowledge has remained stagnant for the last half century. You sound like my father (also a retired MD) who has been trained to reach for the pharmaceutical cabinet to "manage" symptoms.
I'll leave it at we'll agree to disagree, but you remind me of the doctors who preferred smoking Camel cigarettes because they were "healthier".
Best wishes though...
BTW... NutritionFacts.org (Dr Greger and his staff) review all 21,000 nutritional studies published in English EVERY YEAR and simply dissect the SCIENCE... you know, the randomized double-blind control studies you are so fond of... your ad-hominem attack notwithstanding.
|