- Messages
- 19,576
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
Wow, I'd never even heard of him, so I googled, and nr. 2 was a link to a very negative article on Uffe Ravnskov by obesity research scientist Arne Astrup, who back in the 80es was paid by the Danish Sugar Factories to do research on how sugar was NOT fattening. In 1995 he did some reasearch into the fattening effects of sugary soft drinks, and unfortunately for him and for the sugar manufacturers the result was that yes, sugar is indeed fattening. This work and the results stayed put in his drawer for 7 years!Uffe Ravnskov
There's loads of statin-bashing on this forum, which I don't understand (genuinely, I'm not being antagonistic). Here's what I do understand (note, I've worked in clinical research for 6 years):
What I don't understand is, what is the biomarker of blocked up arteries and do statins lower it? Do they reduce the plaques formed in the arteries?
- Statins don't lower cholesterol. What is called "cholesterol" in context of lipid results, isn't cholesterol, it's lipoproteins.
- Cholesterol is a simple fatty molecule, lipoproteins are complex proteins, one end is soluble in water, the other is soluble in fat. Lipoproteins can therefore form a ball and carry fat on the inside around the blood stream.
- Statins are a very safe drug. Yes there are some adverse events reported, as there are with any drug, but on the whole are one of the safest drugs to use. I'm basing that on my clinical research where we I have monitored Adverse Events for a whole host of drugs across the clinical spectrum for 6 years.
There's loads of statin-bashing on this forum, which I don't understand (genuinely, I'm not being antagonistic). Here's what I do understand (note, I've worked in clinical research for 6 years):
What I don't understand is, what is the biomarker of blocked up arteries and do statins lower it? Do they reduce the plaques formed in the arteries?
- Statins don't lower cholesterol. What is called "cholesterol" in context of lipid results, isn't cholesterol, it's lipoproteins.
- Cholesterol is a simple fatty molecule, lipoproteins are complex proteins, one end is soluble in water, the other is soluble in fat. Lipoproteins can therefore form a ball and carry fat on the inside around the blood stream.
- Statins are a very safe drug. Yes there are some adverse events reported, as there are with any drug, but on the whole are one of the safest drugs to use. I'm basing that on my clinical research where we I have monitored Adverse Events for a whole host of drugs across the clinical spectrum for 6 years.
From a talk by Asst Prof. Ken Sikaris called 'Making Sense of LDL' on YouTube, statins can lower small dense LDL (sdLDL) which IS linked with CVD. (It is small enough to penetrate arterial walls and easily oxidised, as it is Vit E deficient, so attracts macrophages. Thus Atherosclerosis results.)What I don't understand is, what is the biomarker of blocked up arteries and do statins lower it? Do they reduce the plaques formed in the arteries?
Wow! There must be some really dangerous drugs around then...There's loads of statin-bashing on this forum, which I don't understand (genuinely, I'm not being antagonistic). Here's what I do understand (note, I've worked in clinical research for 6 years):
What I don't understand is, what is the biomarker of blocked up arteries and do statins lower it? Do they reduce the plaques formed in the arteries?
- Statins don't lower cholesterol. What is called "cholesterol" in context of lipid results, isn't cholesterol, it's lipoproteins.
- Cholesterol is a simple fatty molecule, lipoproteins are complex proteins, one end is soluble in water, the other is soluble in fat. Lipoproteins can therefore form a ball and carry fat on the inside around the blood stream.
- Statins are a very safe drug. Yes there are some adverse events reported, as there are with any drug, but on the whole are one of the safest drugs to use. I'm basing that on my clinical research where we I have monitored Adverse Events for a whole host of drugs across the clinical spectrum for 6 years.
As one of the statin bashers I guess I had better attempt a reply.There's loads of statin-bashing on this forum, which I don't understand (genuinely, I'm not being antagonistic). Here's what I do understand (note, I've worked in clinical research for 6 years):
What I don't understand is, what is the biomarker of blocked up arteries and do statins lower it? Do they reduce the plaques formed in the arteries?
- Statins don't lower cholesterol. What is called "cholesterol" in context of lipid results, isn't cholesterol, it's lipoproteins.
- Cholesterol is a simple fatty molecule, lipoproteins are complex proteins, one end is soluble in water, the other is soluble in fat. Lipoproteins can therefore form a ball and carry fat on the inside around the blood stream.
- Statins are a very safe drug. Yes there are some adverse events reported, as there are with any drug, but on the whole are one of the safest drugs to use. I'm basing that on my clinical research where we I have monitored Adverse Events for a whole host of drugs across the clinical spectrum for 6 years.
As one of the statin bashers I guess I had better attempt a reply.
After extensive reading I think that the whole cholesterol saturated fat causing CVD is incorrect.
I think you are saying that statins have an effect on lipoproteins? Whether this is a good thing or not is open to much debate.
Lipoproteins are the transporters of fat around the body. Whether we should mess around with that transport when using fat for fuel (as those of us in ketosis seem to be) is open to debate. Personally I think we should leave well alone.
Your blanket statement " Statins are a very safe drug" is also very open to debate. It would seem that in the trials a run in period was in operation (pre selection) where people with side effects were removed from the trial to limit the reports of side effects. I'm sure you would agree this is hardly open and honest. Also of course the results of said trials especially when assessed again seem to be dubious.
There have been a number of papers published recently (most of which I have posted links to in other threads) where various people who's opinion I respect have stated their opposition to general statin prescription except in very specific cases and even then the benefits may well have been historically overstated.
I think you'll find that statins have been around a lot longer than 6 years and many people have reported adverse reactions.. I have seen between 20 and 50% figures quoted. So very safe? I think possibly not.
I write this as an informed layman rather than a scientist but if when my doctor tries to push them on my to "lower" my "bad cholesterol" I quite happily refuse and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Yep there are some really nasty drugs out there. Drug development is all about efficacy vs safety. Some drug trials that I’ve been involved have ended with causal deaths. The adverse events of drugs are recorded on something called a CTC Scale where 1 is mild and 5 is death. I doubt whether statins have many incidents over 2, which is “moderate”. They wouldn’t have be approved for long-term chronic use otherwise. Some cancer drugs I’ve worked with have CTC grades of 4 which is “life threatening” and are still considered clinically applicable in acute situations. Again, it’s all about safety vs efficacy.
I’m not saying statins have been around for 6 years, I’m saying I’ve been involved in the assessment of adverse effects of drugs for 6 years. Also, I’m not saying we should lower lipoproteins via statins.
Let me rephrase, I’m asking whether statins are efficacious at reducing plaques; also what are the biomarkers (a big marker is a compound that indicates the presence of a disease) of plaques? It could be that statins just reduce the biomarkers and have no affect on the efficacy.
Most statin trials were carried out a while ago... Current standards may not have been applied and I'm pretty sure current statistical analysis methods weren't.. Don't be too quick to dismiss all the conspiracy theories some may well have some truth behind them.It’s complete and utter rubbish.
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?Most statin trials were carried out a while ago... Current standards may not have been applied and I'm pretty sure current statistical analysis methods weren't.. Don't be too quick to dismiss all the conspiracy theories some may well have some truth behind them.