dawnmc said:The thing is tho' its easier to dish out drugs without finding out what the underlying problem is. Most Gp's don't want the hassle of dealing with difficult patients ie those ones who want to know about their condtion, they are more of a pain because it means the doc has to work harder.
librarising said:jopar wrote
As Sid said, Briffa background is basically selling a particular diet to individuals
well, in his own words :
I’m a naturally-oriented medical doctor, author and speaker. My work is dedicated to providing honest and trustworthy holistic health advice that can be used to combat and prevent illness, overcome everyday ailments, enhance energy and bring a greater sense of wellbeing. The advice and information you’ll find on this site is based on a mix of published as well as what I’ve learned works (and does not work) during 20 years of clinical practice as a doctor.
If you had a GP like that would you distrust them ? I only wish my GP was working in my interests like Dr Briffa claims to.
Oh I forgot he's an author. That's lower than a politician.
Lets shoot the messenger. That's been going on in medical research for decades. Just in a quieter way.
Geoff
Sid Bonkers said:borofergie said:Sid Bonkers said:Can you qualify "less clear" borofergie as less clear hardly sounds definitive to me?
Yes. There is no-clear evidence that statins have a benefit in people without a history of CVD (that includes me and you, I hope). That's as definitive as science gets, you could never show that there was absolutely no benefit.
OK so I understand where you're coming from with the 'less clear' thing, but it sounds so definite when you say it, not less clear at all :lol:
Sid Bonkers said:Could it also be that diabetics could be added to that proviso too? Not saying we are (more at risk) but I do hear many people being told that diabetics are at a higher risk of cardio vascular stuff.
As you know my cholesterol is pretty good at 4.1 and although Ive not had a full lipid profile done in the last year or so the last one in 2010 showed my trigs at .4 or something and previous ones were never more than .8, which is why I assume they stopped the fasting blood tests for me in 2010.
But perhaps I may benefit from a statin as some have mentioned for reasons other than cholesterol. Ive never been offered one to date but I would definitely listen to my doctor should he suggest I take one, especially if he gave me good enough reasons
Sid Bonkers said:Drifting off a bit here and not aimed at you but - I just dont get this paranoia some members seem to have towards drugs and the medical profession in general, all I have ever been given is good advice and on more than one occasion doctors have actually saved my life for which I am eternally grateful :clap: These same people often seem quite happy to take a selection of vitamins and herbal remedies which have never undergone any testing at all but baulk at the idea of taking a 'drug'. They're all drugs at the end of the day, arent they?
jopar said:I actually don't take statin's, as after discussing the pro's and con's of them with my consultant, that as I've already got good cholesterol I don't need to take them...
borofergie said:jopar said:I actually don't take statin's, as after discussing the pro's and con's of them with my consultant, that as I've already got good cholesterol I don't need to take them...
If your consultant was in any way competent, you would never have had that conversation with her.
Nobody has ever demonstrated a reduction in mortality by prescribing stains to females. The fact that she even discussed it with you suggests that her advice has no grounds in science. I'd do my own research and look for a better consultant if I was you.
jopar said:Now I actually find this post quite offensive on several levels!
Firstly,it comes across as being based from a very chauvinistic and arrogant opinion indeed..
Arrogance that you believe that you are qualified or even competent to judge an individuals medical knowledge that you've never even met, or even know there view points of diabetic care!
Chauvinistic as it seems that you have a low opinion of females!
But thank you, I am more than happy with my consultant who happen's to be a very competent person, so I shall be taking the advise from an individual, very unqualified individual on the internet forum who thinks that he knows better!
As I am more than competent to make my own decisions where my own health is concerned!
Kendrick said:To date, no large trial of women statin users who already have cardiovascular disease has been shown to increase life expectancy by one day. More importantly, the use of statins in women at lower risk has not increased life expectancy nor prevented heart attacks and stroke.
It raises the question whether women should be prescribed statins at all. I believe that the answer is no. Statins fail to provide any overall health benefit in women. The more recent heart protection study was hailed as a success for men and women, but despite the hype there was no effect on mortality in women.
If you’re on a statin because you’re at high risk of cardiovascular disease and you have muscle pain, it’s worth taking the vitamin-like substance Coenzyme Q 10. Statins cause levels of this to fall in the body. I’ve seen no evidence that taking it causes harm.
Eddie Vos responding to Cochrane review said:What the editorial does not mention are differences with women, and where there is no doubt that there is no mortality benefit, as per at least three meta-analyses. Two of them found a relative risk [RR] of 1.00 versus placebo, including one including secondary prevention, and one concluding: "Our study showed that statin therapy reduced the risk of CHD events in men without prior cardiovascular disease, but not in women. Statins did not reduce the risk of total mortality both in men and women"
Suggesting that women at any cardiac risk reduce all-cause deaths by taking statins is, at best, a statistics-derived artifact with unclear but massive numbers needed to treat, and at worst, a delusion or a deception. The reality: even in extreme-risk women in the much-cited 4S study,[5] there were three more deaths in women on statin than on placebo.
I suggest that in a next analysis women and men should be treated separately, and this regarding all single individual endpoints. The universally abused reporting item of "major cardiovascular events" should be banished, since it virtually always includes non-fatal angina-related effects, including medical decisions such as non-life-saving planned revascularisations. For example, in JUPITER, revascularisations were by far the major "event" benefit and, in women, the only significant one after 6500 on-statin years … and cardiovascular mortality was not reduced in either men or women.[6]
When any-cause deaths are not reduced by drugs prescribed for a fatal disease, we are treating either lesser value effects, numbers in lab reports or other surrogate endpoints but not real causes.[7] That is the case for statins in women, a mathematical certainty.
borofergie said:I never expressed any opinion of females. I hold them in the highest regard. I despise any type of prejudice or discrimination..
borogfergie said:If your consultant was in any way competent, you would never have had that conversation with her.
jopar said:As here you can see, you've referred to to my consultant as being her when I actually haven't said what sex my consultant is!!
jopar said:But there again, you making assumption concerning what I've have said, as where in any of my posts to this thread, have I said that anybody let alone a female should or shouldn't be taking statins as a preventive measure!
If you read my comments, I believe that everybody needs to look at the research available and make their own minds up, concerning whether they want to take a statin or not! So really can't see why you asking me to prove something I hadn't said or inferred!
RoyG said:Guy's and Gal's we are going off piste with this one, can we get back on track? Statins remember!! are they valid or not and what's the pro's and Con's.
RoyG said:Guy's and Gal's we are going off piste with this one, can we get back on track? Statins remember!! are they valid or not and what's the pro's and Con's.
Defren said:RoyG said:Guy's and Gal's we are going off piste with this one, can we get back on track? Statins remember!! are they valid or not and what's the pro's and Con's.
I am on Simvastatin. I have my HbA1c in a weeks time, and will see my GP a week after that. I personally would like to come of statins. My GP really is one of the good ones, so I will listen to what he says, but I would prefer to be statin free if my cholesterol is low enough.
And your doing an admiral job borofergie, with plenty of good scientific documentation to promote your point, The more information posted here the easier it will be to see all sides.borofergie said:RoyG said:Guy's and Gal's we are going off piste with this one, can we get back on track? Statins remember!! are they valid or not and what's the pro's and Con's.
I just explained why they weren't valid for at least 50% of the population.
borofergie said:Defren said:RoyG said:Guy's and Gal's we are going off piste with this one, can we get back on track? Statins remember!! are they valid or not and what's the pro's and Con's.
I am on Simvastatin. I have my HbA1c in a weeks time, and will see my GP a week after that. I personally would like to come of statins. My GP really is one of the good ones, so I will listen to what he says, but I would prefer to be statin free if my cholesterol is low enough.
Like I said above Def, there is no evidence that statins have any benefit to women. You should talk to HIM and ask HIM to justify the evidence behind HIS decision to prescribe them.
So much for "evidence based medicine".
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?