Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Low-carb Diet Forum' started by bulkbiker, Sep 11, 2018.
Yay! Uffe Ravnskov again
Link to full study
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pybuhn9wp...lar Disease - a comprehensive review.pdf?dl=0
I'm gonna bump this one relentlessly v. important.
I'm halfway through it but I had to go out. Will read the rest when my grandson goes home or when the football is on tonight.
Very interesting - many thanks!
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!
Now, who would I trust more? Arne Astrup or Uffe Ravnskov? Here's a link to the article, if anyone fancies a google translated version ... http://sund-forskning.dk/artikler/arne-astrup-om-uffe-ravnskovs-paastande-om-kolesterol/
At my surgery the other day there was a poster with the header - Tired on statins? And underneath a suggestion to take another drug to stop the tiredness. Mind boggles.
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):
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.
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?
A couple of links :-
Cholesterol is an organic molecule. It is a sterol, a type of lipid molecule, and is biosynthesized by all animal cells, because it is an essential structural component of all animal cell membranes and is essential to maintain both membrane structural integrity and fluidity. Wikipedia
Molar mass: 386.654 g/mol
Melting point: 148 °C
IUPAC ID: (3β)-cholest-5-en-3-ol
Density: 1.05 g/cm³
Soluble in: Ethanol, Acetone, Chloroform, Methanol, Ether, Benzene, Hexane, Isopropyl myristate
There are For's and against, but mainly against on this forum. I would think statins don't work for everyone and like many medications, they can have side affects.
My son ( an adult) had symptoms of diabetes a couple of years ago. Whilst he was telling me, I said I will do a finger prick test, but whatever the out come is you must see your GP. His reading was in the normal range, so he made an appointment and he had a high Cholesterol of 6.5, GP immediately put him on statins and it went down to 3. ?, can't remember the exact figure though, but he did feel much better. I think he then stopped taking them, but I need to ask him again.
You may or may not have heard of Etoricoxib which was also considered a safe drug and was widely prescribed (though not as widely as statins) until it wasn't. Only in real life was it it found to raise the risk of stroke to unacceptable levels. Did Etoricoxib work? It worked for me for six/seven years, was it worth the risk? No.
There are fundamental questions that remain concerning statin use that I would want answered fully and honestly before reconsidering my decision not to take them.
May I ask, just out of interest, do you work with data (analyst?) or do you work on the shop floor so to speak?
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.)
Wow! There must be some really dangerous drugs around then...
Statins are known to increase BG and therefore induce T2 in some people.
There has never been any clinical evidence that they are of any use to women, so even if they are harmless (which they aren't) why would any woman want to take them?
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.
I also kept refusing statins , I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in January of this year , I reduced my BG with diet alone , then in June I had a HA and had yo have 3 stents fitted , I'm now taking 80mg statins and other numerous drugs and I can't argue the fact of not taking them anymore . I'm very concerned what this dose will do to my liver in the long run , I was discharged by the cardio team after only 9 weeks and now have to rely entirely on my dr . I'm waiting to see if it's in the family
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.
Also, I’ve seen a few conspiracy theories knocking around that people are removed from trials to improve the results. It’s complete and utter rubbish. The safety of patients is the number one concern of all colleagues that I have ever worked with, including (in fact, especially) company directors.
There are lots of reasons why people are removed from clinical trials. Principally because of safety concerns - has the disease progressed and is it safe to give them a drug with unknown side effects at this time (this could describe the bias given by @bulkbiker). Also, have they not followed protocol of taking the drug as directed? Has their illness got better? Have they decided to withdraw themselves? Will the medical centre they report to have adequate physicians to deal with adverse effects? Do these centres report adverse effects in an appropriate time?
Lots of reasons, not always because we’re trying to cheat.
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.
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?