-
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 study flawed- high LDL does raise CVD risk
- Thread starter Tannith
- Start Date
CherryAA
Well-Known Member
Whilst the debate about statins rages on, this is inevitable. Even if it is proved irreversibly that statins kill people in their thousands, there will continue to be studies put out that show the reverse. That is because there is simply too much money being made from statins for that message to be an acceptable one to industry even if true.
What is utterly clear is that many people can obtain dramatic lipid improving benefits from adopting a low carb, healthy fat lifestyle. In study after study the impact of that diet is to reduce triglycerides and increase HDL. That is exactly what I experienced with a reversal which was orders of magnitude better than any statin trial result ( I have looked at dozens of them).
The effect of that is that the ratio of HDL to LDL improves dramatically and the ratio of HDL to total cholesterol improves dramatically. Once blood tests are done after a few months of that lifestyle many many people find that their cholesterol markers have improved beyond recognition such that there is no longer any discussion at all about taking statins because they are simply not relevant. ( as is the case with me)
In most people adopting the lifestyle LDL goes down a little but the ratios become excellent. For some people they become hyper responders with both very high LDL and high HDL. That has prompted a lot of engineering research into the causes because its clear that these " high cholesterol" people are in many instances quite obviously very fit and healthy athletes.
The work of Dave Feldman has shown that far from being a health marker that moves at a glacial pace that requires long term statin usage, LDL is a highly variable marker that can be influenced in a few days by different food inputs. He has even published a protocol as to what to do to change your cholesterol in the few days before you visit a doctor , ( or have an insurance blood test) that should change your markers to a normal range.
Dave Feldman is an engineer not a doctor, Ivor Cummins is another one. Both of them have analysed what is happening from an engineering standpoint instead of a " what drugs can we use" standpoint. Both of them are worth taking a look at if one wants to actually understand the point of both diet and statins on health and cholesterol.
look up The Feldman Protocol
and see
and
Having looked at all this stuff, my comment would be - that even if statins do have a place in treatment options, that should only be AFTER one has changed diets to one which maximises health markers including cholesterol and that is an LCHF type diet.
Art Of Flowers
Well-Known Member
You need to see the link between cholesterol and all cause mortality. High cholesterol is associated with higher mortality, but low cholesterol is also associated with higher rates of death.
DavidGrahamJones
Well-Known Member
The devil is in the detail. Statins make me think of a song from my youth.
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Yeah, I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Thankfully nobody can force me to take them, and as has already been mentioned a lower carb diet has helped me get cholesterol down to 4 (no further details currently available), so I'll just see what happens. When my time comes . . . . .
first14808
Well-Known Member
Dead is dead. There are lies, **** lies, and... ?
Which is the problem. There's a lot of money being made promoting statins, and a lot less money available for trials/research to study negative effects. Then there's PR defending positions and trying to keep us popping pils. And of course there's also liability and professional reputation at stake. It would be embarassing and expensive if advice around statin prescribing was incorrect, or worse, harmful.
Kentoldlady1
Well-Known Member
Does the bhf receive any funds ng from any pharmaceutical companies with an interest in statins?
Or do any of its board/governing members have any association with companies/individuals with a pharmaceutical interest?
I ask because I only recently found out that the head of the dieticians professional body was an executive with coco cola before this appointment. I am sure that there is no conflict of interest.
Or do any of its board/governing members have any association with companies/individuals with a pharmaceutical interest?
I ask because I only recently found out that the head of the dieticians professional body was an executive with coco cola before this appointment. I am sure that there is no conflict of interest.
Bluetit1802
Legend
Says it all really. I can't help wondering why so many furniture manufacturers/suppliers are sponsors though, and I had to laugh at the Funeral Plans one.
Oldvatr
Expert
Furniture manufacturers might have a hidden agenda to supply bariatric seating.
Kentoldlady1
Well-Known Member
The problem is that these are the easily seen ones. It's the hidden ones that are the problem. Like the coco cola executive running the dieticians group. Sorry, ex executive. I saw this on the zoe hardcombe site.
And of course, flora have no interest in keeping us all worried about cholesterol!
Oldvatr
Expert
I would hope that as a charitable organisation BHF will be audited regularly and be required to return annual reports that should show that info. Whilst it is by no means a fool proof system, the checks and balances should at least balance the cheques. I think they are required to declare publicly all significant donations.
Kentoldlady1
Well-Known Member
Yes, I am sure you are right. Its the not so clear associations that are a bit worrying. Like the cross over of an executive from coco cola to the dieticians. Its very hard to make an organisation publicly declare stuff like that.
Guzzler
Master
There is an old black and white film called '12 Angry Men'. If you have seen it you will get my point immediately. Informed choice can only be made when all the evidence is put in front of you and when that evidence is irrefutable. In the case of statins the scientific knowledge is incomplete and will remain so until the knowledge of the full roles of cholesterol is understood. No matter what statistics say about mortality re cholesterol how can an individual decide when the evidence remains piecemeal?
Bluetit1802
Legend
The problem as I see it is new research costs billions. Even if some well meaning organisation/charity wants to do some research they need financial backing. Only those with an interest in the outcome will come forward with that backing, and these are the food organisations and big pharma. The only other method is to look at all the old research and re-analyse it, which is what happens mostly, but what is needed is new impartial research.
Guzzler
Master
I agree in full. But where does that leave us? The best we can do is to look at both sides and see which which side we are more comfortable with. The OP has posted a link which cites data that the boffin reports as flawed but the original data pullers would undoubtedly disagree. Statistics can be made to do anything one wants. The danger is that folks make up their minds one way or the other simply because 'everyone is being treated with a statin' or because they have suffered no side effects. For me this is not enough, I have to weigh up the benefits v risks and if those details are missing or somewhat blurred then I choose to decline.
first14808
Well-Known Member
Research doesn't necessarily cost billions, ie it's not like designing a new, safer statin replacement. Some of the criticism was against literature reviews, which is relatively cheap. One criticism was for focusing on English-language reports, which could be fixed relatively cheaply, ie data are often universal, and conclusions translatable.
Population studies can also be managed relatively cheaply, ie a UK sample of say, 3,000 people enrolled. If all those people have standardised codings and standardised testing, then data builds up. But challenge then is time. So a study started now may not produce anything statitisically significant for 10+ years. With statins though, as they've been heavily prescribed for a long time now, more data should be available to analyse, normalise and attempt to draw conclusions.. Which has been happening, ie papers showing statins have negligable benefits, or additional risks.
Population studies can also be managed relatively cheaply, ie a UK sample of say, 3,000 people enrolled. If all those people have standardised codings and standardised testing, then data builds up. But challenge then is time. So a study started now may not produce anything statitisically significant for 10+ years. With statins though, as they've been heavily prescribed for a long time now, more data should be available to analyse, normalise and attempt to draw conclusions.. Which has been happening, ie papers showing statins have negligable benefits, or additional risks.
