• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Interesting article from UKs Daily Telegraph

Jo_the_boat

Well-Known Member
Messages
809
Location
Littleborough, Lancashire
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
This from a vascular surgeon 3 1/2 years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/10717431/Why-Ive-ditched-statins-for-good.html

One paragraph reads.....
"GPs are, by definition, generalists. They don’t have time to read and analyse data from every paper on every medical condition. Even so, in a recent survey by Pulse magazine, six in 10 GPs opposed the draft proposal to lower the risk level at which patients are prescribed statins. And 55 per cent said they would not take statins themselves or recommend them to a relative, based on the proposed new guidelines."

Bear in mind this is March 2014
 
Some interesting comments from the article ...

The 2011 Hunt 2 study, one of the most recent and largest, followed 52,000 men and women in Norway aged 20-74 with no pre-existing heart disease, for 10 years.

The results for women were crystal clear. The lower a woman’s total cholesterol, the greater her risk of dying, either of heart disease or anything else, including cancer. This reflects findings in previous studies.

For men, high cholesterol was associated with heart disease and death from other causes. But so, too, was low cholesterol — below 5mmol/l. Again, this is only an association, not a causal link. A range of between 5mmol/l and 7mmol/l was the optimum level. Guess what? This is already the national average. In addition, numerous studies have linked high cholesterol levels with increased longevity in the elderly.​

My cholesterol was 4.8, yet I was called in to see my GP who suggested I take statins. Lowering cholesterol below 5 actually raises all cause mortality, especially in women. The real reason for heart disease and strokes is inflammation in the arteries and this is caused by eating too many carbs (e.g. sugar) which causes blood glucose spikes. Cholesterol is a mechanism the body uses to repair damage caused by inflammation as a result of easting too much carbs. Cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease, but a marker that something may be wrong.

Fat in diet has been the scapegoat for too long, whereas it is the high carbs people eat that is causing a rash of diseases including heart disease, cancer and Alzheimers.
 
I will keep my comment short as I have exhausted my arguments against statin on the forum generally. I have seen no evidence of proven benefit re statins. I will not change my opinion unless or until rugged scientific evidence convinces me otherwise. Always ready to be proved wrong but I will not be a part of the group that is being mass medicated on incomplete science/research.
 

Indeed.
From my point of view, as I've written, I have been told to take Statins by a vascular surgeon for a particular problem. What amazes me is that two medics in the same discipline have such diametrically opposed views. Incidentally, this is the first time I've seen someone from the same field expressing these views. The point being that my specialist is vehemently sticking to the Statin route and he, like other HCPs, disappeared into the depths of the hospital without offering any real explanation. I am not thick (very) and deserve proper reasoning. OK, appointment times are strictly limited but at least I could be directed to online or print media where I can learn the balanced facts - and not just diluted national guidelines.
I want to make the best choice for me - I'm sure we all do - but this conflict is difficult when there is so much at stake for all of us.
 

We are the ones who have to live with the consequences of this debacle, it isn't right and it isn't fair.
 
Prof. Ken Sikaris has a couple of really good lectures on youtube. He gives an honest opinion on the state of play re the science as it stands today. Well worth the time to view.
 
Whilst I tend to agree with your statements regarding heart disease etc being directly caused by high carb intake, I would add that the science has not proven that yet, and the jury is still out. The statistics regarding mortality links to total cholesterol are very interesting, but again, the evidence that a LC diet helps reduce total cholesterol or improve 'good' cholesterol is based on anecdotal evidence, and is not yet firmly established, Again, the mantra that sat fat is no longer the bogeyman is based on the findings of one study that was a meta data analysis, so is not exactly gold plated either

I love LCHF and I think it offers great potential, but it is early days yet, and it does not have the rigorous scientific study behind it to provide irrefutable evidence,
 
Thank you @Indy51

I just finished viewing the lecture and took a few notes. Some are just my own thoughts.

Fish Physiology? Vive La France! Hypercholesterolaemia and normal lifespan.
Lower cholesterol = higher incidence of death. NO reduction in CHD by lowering cholesterol.
Lies, **** lies and statistics. Lacking Integrity and shameful.
Possible trigger for Diabetes and Cancer. Relative Harm.
Fallacy (screwed up data)
Clotting factors/cause/CHD CVD
High blood sugar and Keto diet.
 
bulkbiker said:
Bit like the pro statin studies then... sorry couldn't resist...
Click to expand...
Blatant bit of hijacking there, BB..... At least the statin science has been largely debunked now.. I found evidence in one study that their conclusion did not reflect the data at all. Whereas the evidence for higher mortality risk being linked to low cholsterol is actually reported in a couple of studies now, The Harvard Nurses study is a large scale study, and it is still ongoing, so is relatively long term too. It is also forming the basis of a load of independent researchers using the data to discover other trends, so has independent oversight in a way. There is also the Australian study that analysed post mortem data from CVE events vs LDL levels.
 
Based on the pro-statin research paid for by the drug makers, about 150 people need to take statins for each person that benefits from them when they are given out according to the NICE guidelines. A 10 minutes walk each day gives a larger reduction in risk.

But with much more advanced tests then GP have access to, it is possible to predict who will benefit from statins. It is becoming very clear that any benefit is not from reducing total cholesterol.
 
There is also the blatent attempts at marketing statins as a cure all for a whole raft of diseases, such as rheumatism, Parkinsons, and other seemingly totally unrelated to CVE., such as some cancers

Edit to add: Dementia, Alzheimers, CKD and other kidney malfunctions. Now covered by NICE to give an extra 30 million customers.
 
Last edited:
Given that is seem satins reduce inflammation, I can see how over a very large dataset there would be a small reduction in rheumatism and Parkinson’s for people taking them.

But very low carb (keto) diets reduce inflammation a LOT more…….

A very high level of carbs increases inflammation …..

No one yet has a large dataset for LCHF, so we will have to wait for a few years for proof about rheumatism and LCHF.
 
It used to be believed that LDL causes arterial plaque buildup and inflammatiom. Recent science thinking is beginning to show that other particles, such as sLDL and trigs are more likely candidates, and that LDL is an essential endocrine function that transports lipids in the blood, and is not the bad guy at all. Bit like blaming petrol for causing fuel blockages and dirty carburettors, when it is the impurities in it causing those problems.

Edit: LDL is like White Vans doing local deliveries. It is not the vans that cause the accidents, but the drivers who have a certain reputation.
 
Last edited:
It more the inflammation results in arterial plaque buildup, a statin is the ONLY drug that lowers LDL shown to have benefits, it also lowers inflammation. Hence it seems very clear the lowing of LDL has nothing to do with it.....

trigs are clearly a risk factor, but as there are no drugs that lower trips, we don't know if lowering them without "low carb" would be of any benefit.
 
Guzzler said:
I have seen no evidence of proven benefit re statins.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

That applies to other stuff too. Cancer screening is one such area. It has been abundantly proved that it increases survival time between diagnosis and death. But in many cases that is entirely because the cancer has been detected earlier. In those cases people die at pretty much the same age that they would have, even if the cancer had been found later.

Of course it varies quite a lot, depending on the type of cancer. But as a man, I have pretty much decided that (now that I am in my 60s) prostate screening is not for me. It is hard to get them to stop running PSAs, but if they came back and said yours is elevated, I hope I would have the guts to refuse the biopsy. I have heard so much about how it ruins many men's quality of life (and personally known some cases) and how relatively rare the aggressive form of the disease is.

It is age-dependent. If it happened to me in my 20s or 30s that would be a different matter. But if they found prostate cancer at my age, there is an overwhelming chance that something else will kill me before prostate cancer does. Or, that the cancer would kill me, but in ripe old age. (It killed two of my close relatives, but they were both in their mid-90s).

Of course there are likely some men on this forum whose life was saved by early detection of prostate cancer and the subsequent surgery.

Sorry, off-topic but actually a similar issue.
 
Going off on a tangent from the original thread. However, just to clarify from a couple of relatives' experience. For the 'elder generation', it tends to be radiotherapy and hormone treatment to put the cancer into remission exactly for the reason that you say that something else will get you first!
 
Jo_the_boat said:
And 55 per cent said they would not take statins themselves or recommend them to a relative, based on the proposed new guidelines."
Click to expand...

It's interesting that the BMJ and The Lancet are at war over statins. Professor Rory Collins who has been the greatest advocate of statins, will not share the research data that he seems to be the custodian of, even tried tried to get the BMJ to withdraw an article because it spoke of side effects. Independent research was carried and surprise, surprise, they confirmed the BMJ's report the article stayed.

The BMJ also did a straw poll, regardless of new guidelines and 60% of those who replied said they would not prescribe statins for themselves or a relative. I mentioned this to my GP and she just grinned and said "I can think of one of my relatives". I assume she didn't like the relative.

Might be the daily fail, but interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...tons-set-prescribed-GPs-say-wont-statins.html
 
Jo_the_boat said:
I have been told to take Statins by a vascular surgeon for a particular problem. What amazes me is that two medics in the same discipline have such diametrically opposed views.
Click to expand...

I think most doctors, whatever discipline will only ever consider the benefits based on what they've been told. They will tend to follow NICE guidelines because that way you don't get sued when it goes pear shaped.

Some doctors are much more aware of the side effects than others and that might be because we don't all say anything when we have side effects. There is yellow card system which allows US (the patient) not just our GPs to register problems with side effects.

My dilemna started in 2002 because I just wanted to know why the cholesterol level they were happy with in 1997 had lowered and my dose increased and that's when the side effects became really bad and not just a pain (literally). It was very difficult for me to assimilate everything that had been written or put on video because my brain wouldn't take it all in (can I blame brain fog, well known side effect). My mother's family (she was one of 8) all had heart problems, my grandparents, 4 of my uncles all died from heart attacks, so I was keen to avoid that, who wouldn't be.

Fortunately, my total cholesterol dropped when I lowered my carbs to 40gms a day and it is now about 4, except for when I ate more cheese and yoghurt and it went up to 5.7 within 3 months as well. I suppose that proves we can change total cholesterol by diet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…