Another Nail In Statins' Coffin? We Can But Hope..

[bulkbiker]

Sounds fair enough to me, so long as we’re being objective in stating that trials were cheating by unethically removing patients from studies. What studies are you talking about?

And back to my question; are statins efficacious at removing plaques or just their biomarkers?

They don't remove plaque so far as I am aware.. otherwise they would be a "cure" for atherosclerosis and even the manufacturers don't make that claim.. they seem to lower LDL-C in most people thus bringing down the "Total Cholesterol" number. Another fairly meaningless thing to do which may or may not be beneficial (probably not).

 

[SamJB]

They don't remove plaque so far as I am aware.. otherwise they would be a "cure" for atherosclerosis and even the manufacturers don't make that claim.. they seem to lower LDL-C in most people thus bringing down the "Total Cholesterol" number. Another fairly meaningless thing to do which may or may not be beneficial (probably not).

That's the answer I was after. So they lower the biomarker, but are inefficacious at reducing CVD? Have you got any links to studies that find statins are inefficacious at reducing CVD?

 

[bulkbiker]

Sounds fair enough to me, so long as we’re being objective in stating that trials were cheating by unethically removing patients from studies. What studies are you talking about?

And back to my question; are statins efficacious at removing plaques or just their biomarkers?

In answer to your first point..

https://jcbmr.com/index.php/jcbmr/article/view/11/26

I hope it doesn't shake your confidence in RCT's too much but it is a very interesting read.

 

[Indy51]

I'm much more convinced that supplementing K2 will have a more positive effect on plaque than statins will.

In any event, I took one for 6 months and still have issues with TFL/ITB tightness that started when I was taking them. Never again, especially since I read on Kendrick's blog that his wife is involved in research into IPF and there could be a link between the two. I was diagnosed with IPF just after I stopped taking statins as well, so even more relieved I didn't persist beyond 6 months.

 

[bulkbiker]

That's the answer I was after. So they lower the biomarker, but are inefficacious at reducing CVD? Have you got any links to studies that find statins are inefficacious at reducing CVD?

I'll point you here at Dr Malcolm Kendrick's site.
He writes for the layman but at the end of each piece includes the studies he looks at.
You may find it interesting.. he does write quite a lot on CVD and statins.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org

 

[Robinredbreast]

That's the answer I was after. So they lower the biomarker, but are inefficacious at reducing CVD? Have you got any links to studies that find statins are inefficacious at reducing CVD?

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/181453/statins-reduce-deaths-from-heart-disease/

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/18/health/statins-guidelines-conflict-study/index.html

It's a case of, do I believe or do I not believe? it can be so difficult for people to decide when there are conflicting views, it's our health we are concerned about and it shows that it's a minefield out there

 

[Indy51]

On K2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514282:

Vitamin K-dependent proteins, including matrix Gla-protein, have been shown to inhibit vascular calcification.

 

[Guzzler]

Sounds fair enough to me, so long as we’re being objective in stating that trials were cheating by unethically removing patients from studies. What studies are you talking about?

And back to my question; are statins efficacious at removing plaques or just their biomarkers?

You will be familiar with the name John Ionnides (sp)? You may also be familiar with the name Rory Collins. Former editors of medical journals have expressed their dismay at the quality of research wrt bias/CoI.

Is it any wonder that we lowly lay people no longer take things on face value?

 

[SamJB]

In answer to your first point..

https://jcbmr.com/index.php/jcbmr/article/view/11/26

I hope it doesn't shake your confidence in RCT's too much but it is a very interesting read.

Doesn't shake my confidence in RCTs at all. Most of the pre-2006 studies show no change in CV mortality too, plus the sampling post-2006 is questionable. Where in the article does it suggest that people were purposefully removed from a study? I don't have time to read the whole thing, sorry.

I'll point you here at Dr Malcolm Kendrick's site.
He writes for the layman but at the end of each piece includes the studies he looks at.
You may find it interesting.. he does write quite a lot on CVD and statins.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org

I've read Dr Kendrick's book and whilst I agree with the message that fat isn't unhealthy, I do find him a bit diatribical and non-objective.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/181453/statins-reduce-deaths-from-heart-disease/

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/18/health/statins-guidelines-conflict-study/index.html

It's a case of, do I believe or do I not believe? it can be so difficult for people to decide when there are conflicting views, it's our health we are concerned about and it shows that it's a minefield out there

I agree, total minefield! It's very easy to be swayed one way or another. More important to be objective and open-minded. I've been on-and-off with statins in the past. Currently off, but that may change.

 

[SamJB]

You will be familiar with the name John Ionnides (sp)? You may also be familiar with the name Rory Collins. Former editors of medical journals have expressed their dismay at the quality of research wrt bias/CoI.

Is it any wonder that we lowly lay people no longer take things on face value?

Nope, not heard of them. For the record, I'm sceptical too, but I try to be objective since I have first-hand experience of clinical trials.

 

[Guzzler]

Nope, not heard of them. For the record, I'm sceptical too, but I try to be objective since I have first-hand experience of clinical trials.

Being objective I gave the two names in an effort to bring up the fact that they approach data from different angles. Collins (due to contracts) refuses all calls to publish. Ionnides is an expert in data but even he can't pass judgement on data he cannot see.

 

[zand]

@SamJB I thought of you when reading another thread.

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/th...lesterol-does-not-cause-heart-disease.156739/

Do you only test whether the drugs themselves are safe to take or not? In the case of statins would that include testing whether it was safe to artificially reduce cholesterol at all? Even if the drugs are not a problem in themselves surely you also need to know if it's safe to lower something that is naturally produced by the body itself? Cholesterol is there for a reason, why mess with it?

 

[agwagw]

Just a general personal point - in 2003 I was put on statins as part of the then GP 'tickbox' exercise of "this is how to treat diabetes". About a month later I developed acute rhabdomyolysis - I became very weak and almost couldn't get out of bed. Effectively my muscles were turning into pate. It took nearly three months to recover. My total cholesterol level was only 6.

My subsequent low carb, high fish oil diet has resulted in very good cholesterol levels. Moreover, my very enlightened diabetes nurse practitioner has let me use fenofibrate - a rather 'old' (and therefore inexpensive) cholesterol lowering drug - but it has also been shown to have a protective effect to retinal damage via a different molecular mechanism that does not involve cholesterol.

btw, cholesterol is an essential component of cell membranes and eliminating cholesterol from the diet has been implicated in severe mood swings (cholesterol is a precursor to some hormones).

 

[bulkbiker]

The final nail?

we can but hope

 

[Jan_P]

I have just had another run in with my GP who seems only interested in getting me on statins - even though I have got my HBA1C down to 6.4 (which, when challenged, she grudgingly admitted was not actually diabetic) through weight loss and low carb diet. My total cholesterol is 5.7 (HDL and LDL figures are good, I seem to have a problem with triglycerides at 2.5) - however, my GP still saying cholesterol control is more important than glucose control for diabetics and pre-diabetics - feeling bullied....

 

[Guzzler]

I have just had another run in with my GP who seems only interested in getting me on statins - even though I have got my HBA1C down to 6.4 (which, when challenged, she grudgingly admitted was not actually diabetic) through weight loss and low carb diet. My total cholesterol is 5.7 (HDL and LDL figures are good, I seem to have a problem with triglycerides at 2.5) - however, my GP still saying cholesterol control is more important than glucose control for diabetics and pre-diabetics - feeling bullied....

I understand completely and feel the same way but I refuse to be nagged, frightened or bullied into taking a drug I have no faith in and beleive to be harmful.

 

[bulkbiker]

I have just had another run in with my GP who seems only interested in getting me on statins - even though I have got my HBA1C down to 6.4 (which, when challenged, she grudgingly admitted was not actually diabetic) through weight loss and low carb diet. My total cholesterol is 5.7 (HDL and LDL figures are good, I seem to have a problem with triglycerides at 2.5) - however, my GP still saying cholesterol control is more important than glucose control for diabetics and pre-diabetics - feeling bullied....

Your GP is I believe completely wrong..
Does she really understand how statins work and would she take them herself would be my first two questions.
If you can maybe send her a link to Nick Mailers video on what statins do to you.

 

[Bluetit1802]

I have just had another run in with my GP who seems only interested in getting me on statins - even though I have got my HBA1C down to 6.4 (which, when challenged, she grudgingly admitted was not actually diabetic) through weight loss and low carb diet. My total cholesterol is 5.7 (HDL and LDL figures are good, I seem to have a problem with triglycerides at 2.5) - however, my GP still saying cholesterol control is more important than glucose control for diabetics and pre-diabetics - feeling bullied....

Did you fast for this test? If not, that will be the reason your trigs were elevated, especially if you had recently been eating something fatty. They will have been out and about in your blood stream doing their job, and scooped up when your blood was drawn. On a fasting test they should be under 1.9, but in a non fasting test under 2.3.