• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Cholesterol and Statins

Red Herring Alert:
UK readers may be interested to know what RT.com is, and it is a surprising outlet for such an important topic
"RT is the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news."

Whilst the BMJ is a renowned source of information, sadly the media publishing arm is not actually peer reviewed and can suffer poor quality science just like the 'Lancet has with its Open Source publication. I think we need more information that goes back to the trials themselves to examine their pedigree. Malcolm is a well known guru, and has many followers, but we can only fight the pharma machine with evidence, not conjecture.

I liked this article, and I happen to agree with what it says, but we need to examine the evidence behind it if it is to become a goldplated reference.

I will start the ball rolling with these ones that are referenced in the article
https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24285296/
Note: This article is open access for the abstract only. The study report requires purchase from the company that did the study and it is closed access to the general public.
 
Hi, I'm in a dilemma over my high cholesterol (details later).
I was diagnosed a pre diabetic 5 years ago, started eating LCHF and within a short time BS levels were in the normal range, where they have remained but cholesterol did not drop.
As long as I can remember, my cholesterol has been high (I have a sister with HC as well as diabetes).
My GP has been trying to persuade me to take statins, I have politely declined but nevertheless, she ordered them a week ago and they were waiting to be collected from my local pharmacy!!
Latest figures: Serum cholesterol 9.2
Trigs. 1.0
HDL 2.8
LDL 5.9
Chol/HDL Ratio 3.30
QRisk (for what it's worth?) 9.8%
Systolic BP 122

My GP tells me that my high cholesterol is probably genetic, so does this mean Familial hypercholesterolemia? I am a very fit, physically active 70 year old female, weighing 49Kg with no known heart problems in my family. I recently had a severe bout of pain, typical of gall bladder area and am due to have an ultra sound scan on 23rd. October. My GP has also advised me to reduce my fat intake (!)
My question therefore is, should I take statins?
 
Last edited:
steph81170 said:
Hi, I'm in a dilemma over my high cholesterol (details later).
I was diagnosed a pre diabetic 5 years ago, started eating LCHF and within a short time BS levels were in the normal range, where they have remained but cholesterol did not drop.
As long as I can remember, my cholesterol has been high (I have a sister with HC as well as diabetes).
My GP has been trying to persuade me to take statins, I have politely declined but nevertheless, she ordered them a week ago and they were waiting to be collected from my local pharmacy!!
Latest figures: Serum cholesterol 9.2
Trigs. 1.0
HDL 2.8
LDL 5.9
Chol/HDL Ratio 3.30
QRisk (for what it's worth?) 9.8%
Systolic BP 122

My GP tells me that my high cholesterol is probably genetic, so does this mean Familial hypercholesterolemia? I am a very fit, physically active 70 year old female, weighing 49Kg with no known heart problems in my family. I recently had a severe bout of pain, typical of gall bladder area and am due to have an ultra sound scan on 23rd. October. My GP has also advised me to reduce my fat intake (!)
My question therefore is, should I take statins?
Click to expand...

Obviously it's your decision.. however.

Some of the more enlightened doctors and heart specialists often look at the ratio of Trig/HDL to assess risk of heart problems.

Anything sub 0.87 is though of as very good. Yours is 0.385 which is excellent.

Also there is a fair bit of evidence emerging that people following a low carb diet can often have higher levels of LDL without being at increased risk. There's a huge amount of info on Dave Feldmans website www.cholsterolcode.com that you might find complicated but interesting.

As well as this the LDL number is in fact calculated and not measured and many believe that the calculation is flawed when looking at people who eat low carb.

Finally there is some compelling evidence that as we age higher levels of cholesterol are protective against all sorts of things
especially in women. Check out the PURE study video from professor Salim Yussef
Fascinating stuff.
Sorry about the subtitles the english version seems to have disappeared..
 
bulkbiker said:
Obviously it's your decision.. however.

Some of the more enlightened doctors and heart specialists often look at the ratio of Trig/HDL to assess risk of heart problems.

Anything sub 0.87 is though of as very good. Yours is 0.385 which is excellent.

Also there is a fair bit of evidence emerging that people following a low carb diet can often have higher levels of LDL without being at increased risk. There's a huge amount of info on Dave Feldmans website www.cholsterolcode.com that you might find complicated but interesting.

As well as this the LDL number is in fact calculated and not measured and many believe that the calculation is flawed when looking at people who eat low carb.

Finally there is some compelling evidence that as we age higher levels of cholesterol are protective against all sorts of things
especially in women. Check out the PURE study video from professor Salim Yussef
Fascinating stuff.
Sorry about the subtitles the english version seems to have disappeared..
Click to expand...
 
Many thanks for your reply and for the link and video.
More than anything it's the possibility that my high cholesterol is genetic, that concerns me.
 
steph81170 said:
Many thanks for your reply and for the link and video.
More than anything it's the possibility that my high cholesterol is genetic, that concerns me.
Click to expand...

Have you ever had it measured before and was it high then too?
When doctors find cholesterol data they can't explain I'm afraid the FH diagnosis often is used.
That the patient has had perfectly "normal" cholesterol results before (whatever "normal" may be) seems irrelevant.
If you have made it to 70 then it shouldn't be a problem as even if you have FH then older "survivors" live longer.
 
steph81170 said:
Yes, over the past 5 years at least, it has been high.
Do you think the QRisk results are worth anything?
Click to expand...
These are mine for the last 5 years.. not quite so high as yours.
Screenshot 2020-10-11 at 12.04.06.png

Most recent was after a 5 day fast so not representative. They are also pretty dynamic and move about all the time so looking at a particular snapshot could also be considered quite irrelevant
 
Oldvatr said:
Whilst the BMJ is a renowned source of information, sadly the media publishing arm is not actually peer reviewed and can suffer poor quality science...I think we need more information that goes back to the trials themselves to examine their pedigree. Malcolm is a well known guru, and has many followers, but we can only fight the pharma machine with evidence, not conjecture.

.
Click to expand...

Hi Oldvatr. You seem quite taken with peer reviewed research. Consider that only people with certain views get appointed to research positions or are given funds. Then peer reviewers reject research that has passed institutional review. The result of this is that we have decades of research that has failed to collect basic data and fails to answer the basic questions that diabetics want answered. Despite tens of billions in funding worldwide since I have been looking at it. If you want more evidence look at the millions paid to lawyers to hide incompetence and corruption in medical research. Or you could look at just how many diabetics get great results by doing the opposite of what peer reviewed research says they should.
 
nickm said:
Hi Oldvatr. You seem quite taken with peer reviewed research. Consider that only people with certain views get appointed to research positions or are given funds. Then peer reviewers reject research that has passed institutional review. The result of this is that we have decades of research that has failed to collect basic data and fails to answer the basic questions that diabetics want answered. Despite tens of billions in funding worldwide since I have been looking at it. If you want more evidence look at the millions paid to lawyers to hide incompetence and corruption in medical research. Or you could look at just how many diabetics get great results by doing the opposite of what peer reviewed research says they should.
Click to expand...
Indeed I do. We appear to be throwing centuries of scientific knowledge on the bonfire of public media, like they did when they burnt the libraries in the Middle ages. This forum has followed certain pathways, which appear at times to be the exact opposite of those followed by another diabetes forum that I read. So who decides the outcome? The Daily Wail? Old Fred propping up the bar in the local boozer? Where is the fount of knowledge if it is not in the education institutions? Which Guru is the best or which shouts the loudest or published more money making books? Jamie Oliver?

I am a scientist, and I believe in data. I do not believe in statistics. or fairies. or smoke and mirrors. I have seen many studies published recently that are extremely poor quality in certain periodicals. I agree that many 'medical' studies were shown to have had flaws in them and were apparently driven by a conscious bias and financial interests. But new research has led to new ways of looking at things, as shown in the pages of this forum. But I have to say that this forum is very different from the other ones I see. You mention institutional data and peer reviewed data as bring different. Explain this, please.

What you have put forward seems to be reflected in the USA at this very time, and I personally put my money and safety in the science, not the mask waving followers of that Guru over there.
 
bulkbiker said:
Choose your peer reviewers wisely?
Click to expand...
That can be a double edged sword. Bit like the SCOTUS problem in the USA, Or choosing a jury in Al Capone's trial.
It needs a systemic procedure that can hopefully eliminate conscious bias, and in the past this was done by using peer review where the peers were other individuals who had the technical experience in their fields to be in a position to debate sensibly about disputed claims. But the rise of the epidemiological sciences has removed that requirement and nowadays it is done by the authors themselves acting as peer reviewers. In the case of the medicinal studies it was the aspect of commercial sensitivity of the raw data that meant that only the drug companies performing the study had access to the report prior to publication, with the obvious problems that incestuous behaviour would attract.
Academic studies used to be performed by graduates, and peer reviewed by the professors of another university, but now postgrad reports are only reviewed by the tutor and then published, I have seen a lot of recent papers where this occurs, usually noted for their verbose pomposity because the postgrad is trying to impress the examination board for their degree and uses over-complicated language to cover up their inexperience This is not peer review.

This is particularly relevant to the Cholesterol saga which is IMHO totally under the control of the drug companies selling the drugs and performing the research. Until they agree to open up their data for independent peer review then we will continue to have doubts as expressed within this forum. The only study I have seen recently was the Harvard Nurses Study (still ongoing) and that is one that is helping to make the debate more transparent. I think the global effort to solve the Covid pandemic will also help to open things up, except that the media seems to be working against the science and accepting any old story that they can hang a headline on.
 
Back
Top