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).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?
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?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).
In answer to your first point..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?
I'll point you here at Dr Malcolm Kendrick's site.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?
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?
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?
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.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.
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.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 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.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
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.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.
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..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 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....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?