Cholesterol Lowering Drugs May Be Harmful

[Al]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And remember there is absolutely no proven link between exercise and longer life. None. Your QUALITY of life may be improved, but don't think it's going to save you...

"Premature death. As part of the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study funded by NIH, 2,600 men and women age 60 and older had their fitness levels assessed along with weight, body fat, and waist circumference. In studying the mortality rate of participants over a 12-year period, researchers made a striking discovery: Seniors in the least-fit group of participants had a death rate four times higher than the fittest. This research, published in 2007, only confirms what doctors have long said about exercise. If you want to live a long life, the best strategy is to get off the couch now and get moving."

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/art...e-longer?page=2

 

[VeeDubb]

There are studies I believe that show that ultra marathon runners and triathletes don't necessarily live longer. Maybe that's what steveSRT8 is referring to?

In any case, I think there is plenty of evidence that people who do moderate amounts of exercise both live longer and have higher quality lives. Resistance exercise with moderate amounts of cardio is particularly good.

But like anything, too much is not a good thing.

 

[Al]

Quote:
Is your doctor actively doing research in the field you're asking him about? If not he's likely no more educated on a current subject than anyone else who read an article in a medical journal. Or looked at the brochures the beautiful drug rep gave them. If you think all doctors are brilliant minds knowledgeable of everything, you need to talk to my wife. A lot of doctors are dangerous egomaniacs, a lot more ego than sense.

I go to a University Teaching Hospital. I see interns (it will jbe the same one for 2 years). All the Docs there practice the latest medical protocols that are agreed to by the latest research. Each diagnosis is bounced against his/her supervising Physician who is very experienced. Every second or third time the supervising doc will independently come in and examine me if there is a question.

And your statement that the article saying that everyone over 40 should be prescribed for statins is incorrect. Statins are prescribed if a person has a 15% chance of dying via elevated cholesterol in 10 years. The science is that good. But hey...its a free country. You are certainly free to ignore life prolonging drugs.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Al

I go to a University Teaching Hospital. I see interns (it will jbe the same one for 2 years). All the Docs there practice the latest medical protocols that are agreed to by the latest research. Each diagnosis is bounced against his/her supervising Physician who is very experienced. Every second or third time the supervising doc will independently come in and examine me if there is a question.
Most people don't go to that hospital. My wife works in the cardiac intervention unit. She knows a little about this stuff.

Quote:
And your statement that the article saying that everyone over 40 should be prescribed for statins is incorrect. Statins are prescribed if a person has a 15% chance of dying via elevated cholesterol in 10 years. The science is that good. But hey...its a free country. You are certainly free to ignore life prolonging drugs.

I posted the actual guidelines. The didn't say what you're saying. Maybe Harvard was wrong when they posted them, or they have been updated again. You're welcome to post the correct guidelines.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Most people don't go to that hospital. My wife works in the cardiac intervention unit. She knows a little about this stuff.

Nothing stopping folks from doing that.

Quote:
I posted the actual guidelines. The didn't say what you're saying. Maybe Harvard was wrong when they posted them, or they have been updated again. You're welcome to post the correct guidelines.


Quote:

anyone who has cardiovascular disease, including angina (chest pain with exercise or stress), a previous heart attack or stroke, or other related conditions
anyone with a very high level of harmful LDL cholesterol (generally an LDL above greater than 190 milligrams per deciliter of blood [mg/dL])
anyone with diabetes between the ages of 40 and 75 years
anyone with a greater than 7.5% chance of having a heart attack or stroke or developing other form of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years.

 

[hatt]

That's what I posted. Doesn't say "Statins are prescribed if a person has a 15% chance of dying via elevated cholesterol in 10 years" does it.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: hatt
That's what I posted. Doesn't say "Statins are prescribed if a person has a 15% chance of dying via elevated cholesterol in 10 years" does it.

As a practical matter 15% is the next jump up. You won't see anyone with a 10% (that is my understanding). But technically (you are correct) anyone with >7.5% should do statins.

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: 69GTX
At medical school you are taught too little on nutrition. I think Daniels mentions med students get a couple weeks and that's it. The emphasis is on treating symptoms and disease, dispensing medications, and elective/required surgery. Prevention of disease is not the priority. So if you want to learn about nutrition or holistic medicine, you have to seek out a nutritionist or do the research yourself, something that probably too few doctors do once they leave med school.

There was an interesting video posted earlier today that seems to be gone. But it was on the cholesterol myth part 1 (see below). In that video cardiologist Dr. Stephen Sinatra, who's book I read on heart health, ranks cholesterol way down the list on heart health issues. In particular this quote at 21:14 is rather telling: "Cholesterol is found at the scene of the crime, it's not the perpetrator." 4 years ago Sinatra was not a fan of statins.

"I feel that the best indication for a statin drug is a middle-aged male with coronary heart disease and a low HDL," he says. "To me this person has the greatest to gain and the least to lose. The problem I have with cholesterol lowering drugs is that they have horrific side effects… If you treat a woman in her 30s just for "high cholesterol," and treating numbers, I think we're doing a disservice… We really shouldn't use them in elderly people. We shouldn't use them in young people, or in women. I have been very disappointed as a clinical cardiologist in the efficacy of statins in women, even with advanced coronary disease."

Cholesterol Myths

As Sinatra suggests, it took several decades to build this cholesterol myth. It will take a few more decades to undo it. Statins will probably go through a similar process. Too bad we don't have UOA's on our bodies to give us immediate feedback on our health, rather than waiting decades to see how things turn out. The Framingham study has been going on since 1948 with over 5,000 people still in the program. Numerous powerful results have come from this. The wheels turn slowly though in govt and Big Pharma controlled medicine. Much of the medical community is still stuck in the 1960's and 1970's when it comes to cholesterol, heart health, and inflammation.


I have had three "procedures" this past year. NONE of my Doctors are over 45 years of age, my urologist isn't even 40. Of course, I guess that could vary depending on where you are. Right now-Utah is going great guns as far as Economy goes and getting known as a great place to live. My Family Doctor however-is probably in his mid fifties. They are not "stuck in the 70's-since they were barely born.

Did you go to medical school? Or, is your post hearsay?

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: hatt
That's what I posted. Doesn't say "Statins are prescribed if a person has a 15% chance of dying via elevated cholesterol in 10 years" does it.

As a practical matter 15% is the next jump up. You won't see anyone with a 10% (that is my understanding). But technically (you are correct) anyone with >7.5% should do statins.


"or developing other form of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years." Explain this part you keep ignoring. Explain how that doesn't include pretty much everyone? ?????

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: hatt
"or developing other form of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years." Explain this part you keep ignoring. Explain how that doesn't include pretty much everyone? ?????

ummm the ten years is only for the risk like 7.5% of dying within 10 years

It doesn't say "developing other form of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years"


it says:
"anyone who has cardiovascular disease, including angina (chest pain with exercise or stress), a previous heart attack or stroke, or other related conditions" ...meaning right now

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: hatt
"or developing other form of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years." Explain this part you keep ignoring. Explain how that doesn't include pretty much everyone? ?????

ummm the ten years is only for the risk like 7.5% of dying within 10 years

It doesn't say "developing other form of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years"


it says:
"anyone who has cardiovascular disease, including angina (chest pain with exercise or stress), a previous heart attack or stroke, or other related conditions" ...meaning right now
I'm not sure what the deal is here. You posted this exact info, but I'm going to try again.

Quote:
The new guidelines recommend a statin for:

anyone who has cardiovascular disease, including angina (chest pain with exercise or stress), a previous heart attack or stroke, or other related conditions
anyone with a very high level of harmful LDL cholesterol (generally an LDL above greater than 190 milligrams per deciliter of blood [mg/dL])
anyone with diabetes between the ages of 40 and 75 years
anyone with a greater than 7.5% chance of having a heart attack or stroke or developing other form of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/chole...rs-201311136868

I can't make this any clearer. If the Harvard article is wrong then state that and post the corrected information with a link.

 

[VeeDubb]

Have you guys done the risk assessment tool? Basically, there are a lot of correlated factors like whether you've had previous heart or blood vessel issues, whether you smoke, whether your fasting blood sugar level is over 100, your weight, waist size, blood pressure, cholesterol and tryglicerides.

Basically, if you have normal BMI, you are also likely to be low in fasting glucose, wastine, have normal blood pressure, be at low risk of diabetes, etc.

Bottomline is if you are not overweight and don't smoke, you will likely be at low risk of being put on statins. Not saying this is a perfect predictor, but it's a pretty good predictor.

So it certainly doesn't include "nearly everybody" over the age of 40-50. In fact, among me and my group of friends, none of us our on statins. We are active and watch our diets.

I have some family members on statins but you only need to look at them and you'll know. They are are overweight, big belly, poor diet, very little activity.

 

[hatt]

You and your friends all have cardiovascular disease of varying severity.

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/13/9/1291.long

 

[VeeDubb]

Let me put it differently: under the current guidelines, our doctors did not put us on statins.

There was never a claim that we are bulletproof.

 

[hatt]

Or your doctor isn't following the current guideline closely.

 

[Y_K]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Or your doctor isn't following the current guideline closely.


Must be an intelligent doctor.

 

[69GTX]

Originally Posted By: CKN
I have had three "procedures" this past year. NONE of my Doctors are over 45 years of age, my urologist isn't even 40. Of course, I guess that could vary depending on where you are. Right now-Utah is going great guns as far as Economy goes and getting known as a great place to live. My Family Doctor however-is probably in his mid fifties. They are not "stuck in the 70's-since they were barely born.

Did you go to medical school? Or, is your post hearsay?


Good for you. I had a procedure done last year by a doctor/surgeon in his 30's. Very sharp and very qualified. But he's not a primary care physician, nor could I afford him as a PCP. I certainly wouldn't go into a "procedure" with a PCP. I'd have never gotten to see that surgeon if I didn't keep on my PCP to come up with a solution. In fact, my PCP dragged their feet on my condition for several years trying ineffective drug after drug without success. Laser surgery fixed the issue...and I was the one that had to make that suggestion to my PCP following inputs from my brother who had a successful surgery for the same condition. My PCP would have been happy to let my wallow around in discomfort and taking more meds for a couple more years.

Too funny on the med school comment. I clearly referenced 3 separate doctors and excerpts of their qualified opinions. All of the health books I've read were from doctors. Did you read my post. There is a quote there...that's not hearsay. Check out Dr. Holick as well as I've read several of his books on Vit D3.

None of that is my opinion or even learned from having gone to med school. Those doctors I quoted did the hard work for me. My current assistant PCP is in his 30's and he certainly is still in the 1970's with some of this opinions, especially concerning vitamin D3's impact on overall health. For that, I go with the recommendations of both Dr Michael Holick and Dr. Sinatra who are both 69. They are old guys that broke free of the 1970's mentality and drove their own fresh research in the 1980's. Some old guys do get it, but usually not the PCP's who are dispensers of prescriptions and constrained by numerous requirements. Once you can get outside your PCP to a qualified specialist, help often follows.

 

[CKN]

There are always Doctors that go against main stream medicine (Dr. Sinatra comes to mind) and think that their studies are some breakthrough and everybody else is wrong, or think that a certain vitamin or supplement is the "magic bullet". I find it a little ironic that he is in the supplement business BTW. Is this any better than "Big Pharma" making a case for drugs? Good for you 69GTX for being able to discontinue your medications.

Personally, I take a couple of medications for certain conditions and I can tell you that they have improved my life tremendously (without any visible side effects)-so right now I am in the corner of main stream medicine.

 

[VeeDubb]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Or your doctor isn't following the current guideline closely.


I think you are being a little paranoid in your interpretation. Most doctors are not going to automatically diagnose someone with "heart disease" just because some study says a high fraction of people have lesions in their arteries. You have to cross a certain threshold. It's like electrical issues in the heart - everyone has a certain degree of arrythmia but not everyone is wearing an ICD.

My doctor talks to be about the "new guidelines" and his interpretation is that it gives them more latitude not to use "go by the numbers" when prescribing statins. There is more latitude to accommodate a range of factors including lifestyle.

And my doctor is not unique. Like I said, I know many people in my age group not on statins. And you can usually tell by looking at a person whether the person is on medication. If you are overweight, your body will be a pool of inflammation. Statins reduce inflammation. This is not a conspiracy.

 

[VeeDubb]

Originally Posted By: CKN
There are always Doctors that go against main stream medicine (Dr. Sinatra comes to mind) and think that their studies are some breakthrough and everybody else is wrong, or think that a certain vitamin or supplement is the "magic bullet". I find it a little ironic that he is in the supplement business BTW. Is this any better than "Big Pharma" making a case for drugs? Good for you 69GTX for being able to discontinue your medications.




Yeah good points. The dietary and alternative medicine communities are full of hucksters. While one has to certainly be wary of all the money in mainstream medicine, one needs to be equally wary of the legions of alternative health gurus selling uber expensive [censored] or fad diets on their websites.