• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

$29 billion

dawnmc

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,458
Location
Sheffield
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Non-insulin injectable medication (incretin mimetics)
Dr Kendrick et al on statins and cholesterol, just a taster.

http://vimeo.com/33549663

Also:

To quote from WebMD on an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA):

“A test that measures calcium deposits in the walls of the blood vessels supplying the heart is better than other tests for identifying patients at risk for heart attack and stroke. Coronary artery calcium score (CAC) was found to be the most accurate predictor of whether people would suffer one of these events, in a study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The test is increasingly used by heart doctors to identify heart disease, says cardiologist Gordon Tomaselli, MD, of Johns Hopkins University Medical Center. He was not involved with the study. "Someone who has calcium in their coronary arteries is no longer at risk for developing heart disease -- they have heart disease," he tells WebMD. "That is why more and more cardiologists are using this test." (WebMD Health NewsAug. 21, 2012)

So you would expect, would you not, that statins would reduce the amount of coronary artery calcification. Or at least the progression of calcification. Furthermore, you would expect that this effect would be especially pronounced in people with diabetes as their risk of heart disease is around three to five times as great as in the rest of population.

Much my great lack of surprise, the study I was sent found the following (just read the conclusion if you like):

ABSTRACT:

Objective: to determine the effect of statin use on progression of vascular calcification in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

Research and Design methods: Progression of coronary artery calcification (CAC) and abdominal aortic artery calcification (AAC) was assessed according to the frequency of statin use in 197 participants with T2DM.

Results: After adjustment for baseline CAC and other confounders, progression of CAC was significantly higher in more frequent statin users than in less frequent users (mean ± SE, 8.2 ± 0.5 mm(3) vs. 4.2 ± 1.1 mm(3); P < 0.01). AAC progression was in general not significantly increased with more frequent statin use; in a subgroup of participants initially not receiving statins, however, progression of both CAC and AAC was significantly increased in frequent statin users.

Conclusions: More frequent statin use is associated with accelerated coronary artery calcification in T2DM patients with advanced atherosclerosis.

[Saremi A, Bahn G, Reaven PD: 'Progression of Vascular Calcification Is Increased with statin Use in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)' .Diabetes 2012 Aug 8. [Epub ahead of print]]

So, there you go. Statins, which protect against heart disease (a bit), accelerate coronary artery calcification. Explain that one.

My explanation is simple. Statins do not work by lowering cholesterol levels. In fact, lower cholesterol levels lead to more rapid development of atherosclerosis. Any beneficial effect of statins is due to anti-coagulant effect – amongst other non-lipid effects.

Would a supporter of the cholesterol hypothesis care to come up with another explanation that fits the facts?

Anyway, here was a sudden flash of truth. Like supernova they light up the sky for a bit, then fade. Then the world will carry on believing in the cholesterol hypothesis, pretty much as before. Facts cannot destroy belief.

To quote Daniel Kahneman, Nobel prize winner in economics, on the irrationality of the financial system, and how people come to believe in things. He makes many interesting points. For example:

‘The way scientists try to convince people is hopeless because they present evidence, figures, tables, arguments, and so on. But that’s not how to convince people. People aren’t convinced by arguments, they don’t believe conclusions because they believe in the arguments that they read in favour of them. They’re convinced because they read or hear the conclusions from people they trust. You trust someone and you believe what they say. That’s how ideas are communicated. The arguments come later.’




Dr. Malcolm Kendrick | September 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p2i0U
 
dawnmc, hello again...

Excellent reference ! Bravo !

Since reading many qualified authors on the subject of the damned STATINS, I have come to the conclusion that it is just MONEY at the end of the day. OUR lives are unimportant, PROFIT is ALL. The GP's get their usual kickbacks, the pharma's HUGE PROFITS !

Worth checking out , Barry Groves, Trick or Treat
Lars-Erik Litsfeldt, Diabetes ? No Thanks

By the way I had a heart transplant 18 years ago, I took statins, in ignorance, for 2 of those years.I'm in fine fettle !

Don't forget that there are statistics and total LIES ! can you tell the difference ?

Best Regards Superchip...........
 
Love your profile Chip, share the whisky.
 
Bump, in case it was missed and anyone else wanted to read it.
 
Very much looking forward to viewing this film. The clips sound convincing, nice to see Barry Groves and Dr Malcolm Kendrick taking part.

I think that if the truth about this evil drug is ever allowed to come out, the global reaction will make the Thalidomide scandal look like a minor event, as devastating as it was.

Thanks for the link Geoff.

Superchip
 
Had my 6 month clinic at Papworth yesterday and finally convinced the consultant that statins are a bad idea - MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT !
I didn't have the Heart ( sorry! ) to tell him that I haven't taken the **** things for 16 of my 18 years post transplant :twisted: .
I've stopped taking the steroids too, but I'll leave that until the next clinic. I've bought the book $29 billion reasons to lie about cholesterol and haven't read much yet, but looking forward to it.

Got to go, my bottle of wine is evaporating !

Superchip
 
Firstly, this is exactly what I mean by "We cannot make an informed decision" - is CAC all heart disease? If not, then that's your answer right there. But I, not being a doctor, obviously don't know.

Explain that one.
That requires subject knowledge that we don't have, so your argument basically boils down: There is an inconsistency in the "official" argument, therefore you are correct. It doesn't work that way.

But one thing comes to mind: You are measuring progression (i.e. you're only looking at people that already have it) of a surrogate outcome (it's conceivable that there are fewer CV events in the statin group)

Any beneficial effect of statins is due to anti-coagulant effect
Where are you getting that from? E.g. WebMD doesn't list it, and doesn't list the obvious "bleeding" side effects either.

Anyway, here was a sudden flash of truth. Like supernova they light up the sky for a bit, then fade. Then the world will carry on believing in the cholesterol hypothesis, pretty much as before. Facts cannot destroy belief.
Well, what about those studied that find that statins lower actual mortality (not some surrogate outcome)? Your argument requires on a theory of how heart disease works, vs those studies don't. We have moved on from theory-based evidence (bloodletting, bloodletting, and more bloodletting) to evidence-based medicine (e.g. germ theory). Your study is interesting, not sufficient to conclude that your alternative theory is correct.

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick | September 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p2i0U
Does "conflict of interests" mean anything to you?

http://vimeo.com/33549663
That's a bad trailer - the woman's argument in particular is utter nonsense. Hint: For most of the time when people favoured fatty foods, their primary concern was not starving to death. Thanks to modern medicine (massively reduced child mortality, deaths from trivial infections, etc) we now have the opportunity to worry about conditions that kill us in our 50s.

Maybe people would stop inventing health scares if they remembered that 100 years ago they'd have faced much more real health problems.

The GP's get their usual kickbacks, the pharma's HUGE PROFITS !
Interesting theory, but you're wrong. It's not the GPs that decide, they just do what the NICE guidelines tell them to do. The guidelines, in turn, are based on the available evidence at the time. Not sure at what points the GPs' kickbacks come in.

Again: The NHS has to pay for the complications at the end of the day. They have a certain incentive to pick effective medication. The author of the book, on the other hand, is primarily looking to sell a book.
Remember, you're asking me to believe that the NHS is conspiring with big pharma to kill us patients. You need extraordinary evidence for such outlandish claims.

By the way I had a heart transplant 18 years ago, I took statins, in ignorance, for 2 of those years.I'm in fine fettle !
Good for you. How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?
Don't forget that there are statistics and total LIES ! can you tell the difference ?
I can - you evidently cannot.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…